03 Պատմություն 2019 4

ä²îØàôÂÚàôÜ
Albert A. Stepanyan
Doctor of History
HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY IN SOCIAL THEORY

OF MOSES KHORENATSI
Key words - household/family, polygamy, monogamy,
full-right marriage, conditional marriage, family-society-state
isomorphism, Moses Khorenatsi, Aristotle, Philo of Alexan-
dria, Matakdan i-Hazar Datastan.
Introduction
Antique and Early Medieval (Christian) social theory is considered to be based on

the concept of the isomorphism of the two principal components of social life –
individual and social bodies. This approach reached back to the Sophists, Socrates,
and Plato. In his treatise, Politics, Aristotle brought the concept of focusing attention
on the household/family (oivjkoς) to fruition and finding in it the first (and the basic)
form of social partnership (koinoniva) [Aristot., Polit., II, 1259a, 3 - 7]. He believed
that the socialization of two opposite individuals – men and women – was only
effectively formed within a family.1
The concept was introduced in Armenia either directly or via Hellenistic authors
(initially through Philo of Alexandria), and played an important role in the
interpretation and understanding of the historical past and present. This was the case
for the texts of Agathangelos, Faustos Buzand, Eghishē, Ghazar Parpetsi. Particularly,
it was an important topic for Moses Khorenatsi in his History of the Armenians, which
is the main concern of the present investigation.2
However, the intellectual situation in Early Medieval Armenia was more compli-
cated. Besides Antique influence, traditional Armenian, Zoroastrian and Biblical in-
tellectual paradigms were also important.3 To restore the adequate situation, it is
1 Aristotle states that civilization “[…] has advanced sequentially through three associations (koinwnivai) – household, village and
state” [Aristot., Pol., II, 1104a,15]. Cf. Saunders, 1999, 126 – 127.
2 Unfortunately, this aspect has not yet met due attention in modern scholarship. A comprehensive study of the influence of Philo
on Armenian historiography is still awaiting its researcher.
3 In modern scholarship, the Zoroastrian component is usually neglected, although it is very important when reconstructing the
spiritual situation of 4th century Armenia. See Garsoïan, 1996, 7 – 43; Russell, 1987, 4 – 17.
30
necessary to consider this data as well. We will begin the discussion with the
ՊԱՏՄՈՒԹՅՈՒՆ
problem of the human being as a social animal.4
1. The Human Being

a. The axiological aspect
According to Aristotle, every form of natural being exists in threefold axiology

based on the three essential poles of quality – deficiency (hJ uJperbolhv), excess (hJ
aujvxhsiς) and mean (to; mevtron) [Aristot., NE., II, 1106a, 25 - 30]. The objective of
the last pole was to bring the two formers into balance and support a being to obtain its
completion (hJ ejntelevceia).5 The latter was thought capable of realizing its purpose
Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

only in this case. It must be added that this concept had an appropriate development in
Aristotelian psychology. In particular, the philosopher identified the extreme poles with
human passion (hJ paqhv) and linked the pole of mean with virtue (hJ ajrethv) [Aristot.,
Nic. Eth., II, 1106b, 25].6
Philo of Alexandria had applied this concept in his numerous works with the intention
of reinterpreting the renowned biblical subjects in light of Antique philosophy.7 His
works were popular in Early Medieval Armenia, translated into Armenian, and com-
mented on and interpreted by generations of intellectuals. Moreover, some of his writings
have only been preserved in Armenian.8
According to Philo, the extremes engender inordinate and excessive, irrational and
unnatural impulses. As for the mean, it is linked with measure [Philo, Spec., 4, 79;
Leg., 3, 185]. Following Plato, the philosopher traces a correspondence between these
impulses and the human soul consisting of three main parts.9 The extremes are thought
to be generated by the base parts of it (somatic, passionate), while the measure - by the
higher part (rational).10 Correspondingly, the extremes are combined with (positive or
negative) passions – desire, fear, sadness, pleasure, joy, will, caution, hope, etc. Self-
4 Here, we are referring to the Aristotelian concept of political animal (zww~n politikovn) [Aristot., I, 1253,a, 1 - 3]. Cf. Knoll,
2017, 31 – 32.
5 Aristotle discusses this problem in the context of the universal relations of things and beings [Aristot., Phys., II, 193b, 5 - 20]
comprising all forms of life. Cf. Salkever, 1990, 19. Aristotle connects the state of completion with happiness (eujdaimoniva).
Crips, 1999, 113 – 118; Richardson Lear, 2009, 387 – 403.
6 In an essential sense, this virtue is linked with the harmonic state of a being. Men attain it through their rational choice between
two excesses. See Annas, 1996, 748 – 752; Crips, 1999, 118 – 122. We will not go into detail regarding intellectual and moral
virtues in Aristotelian theory. On this aspect see Deslauriers, 2002, 107 – 122.
7 In this endeavor, Philo kept in mind the Socratic, Stoic, Platonic, Aristotelian, and Pythagorean philosophical systems. His point
of departure was to combine their essential ideas and concepts with the imaginative wisdom of Bible. The explicit reflection of
that was the comparison between Plato and Moses. Cf. Dillon, 2008, 226 – 232.
8 Zarbanalean, 1889, 734 – 747. Arevshatyan,1973, 32. This fact is to be discussed in the context of the great argumentative net-
work of the Mediterranean world. Cf. Collins, 1998, 103 – 108.
9 On Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul, see Ferrari, 2007, 166 – 176.
10 Scholars agree that the psychology of Philo is mostly influenced by Timaeus, Protagoras and the Republic of Plato. However,
the author’s ideal ought to be linked with Middle Platonism intent on combining Platonic and Stoic approaches. See in detail
Reydams-Schilds, 2008, 175 – 182.
31
control and endurance are designed to overcome passions and lead men to virtues –
prudence, temperance, courage, piety, repentance and nobility [Philo, Spec., 4, 135].11
Philo shares the antique view connecting the base parts of the soul with femininity
and the upper one with masculinity, and ascribes axiological coloring to them: “[...] for
the better to rule always and everywhere, and for the worse to be ruled” [Philo, Leg.
All., 1, 72]. This rigorism certainly comes from Aristotle, but it does not encompass the
entirety of Philo’s moral theory.12 Most likely, the latter is of a complementary
character intended to define the roles of the sexes and to integrate them in the context
of the harmonic family. According to the philosopher, this complementarity “[…]
should lead both husbands and wives to cherish temperance and domesticity and
unanimity, and by mutual sympathy shewn in word and deed to make the name of
partnership a reality securely founded on truth” [Philo, Spec., 1, 138]. Scholars believe
that on this point, Philo gives preference to the biblical tradition traceable in the fa-
milies of eminent patriarchs. However, it is also true that the theoretical justification of
it he has been borrowed from Plato and Aristotle.13
The same dualism is traceable in the narratives of the authors of Early Medieval
Armenia. In describing the social status of the sexes, they follow the Aristotelian
(and the Stoic) tradition, but complementarity is preferred when systematically
covering the problem.14 This is especially true in the case of Moses Khorenatsi. We
believe that the author’s concept of the nature of the human being and the house-
hold/family must be discussed while taking into account the data of traditional Ar-
menian (ancestral), Zoroastrian, Biblical moral systems interpreted in the light of
Platonic moral theory.15
b. The human dimension

It has been pointed out that the History of Khorenatsi represents a gallery of
images of eminent heroes and antiheroes. They make up the background of the
Armenian past and present. Moreover, they personify historical situations and are sui
generis semantic keys to them.16 In other words, every historical situation can be
decoded using imaginative features. However, it demands an adequate interpretation
of every image.
11 “[…] unmeasured impulses of man’s passions were calmed and allayed by self-mastery (swfrosuvnh)” [Philo, Op. mundi, 26,
81; Virt., 13; cf. Plato, Rep., 442a-c].
12 This concept encompasses all layers of Philo’s cosmology and sociology, tracing their oppositions and (possible) combinations
from just this point of view. See Prudence Sister, 1985, 91 – 112.
13 Hittinger, 2013, 4 – 15.
14 Stepanyan, 1991, 117 – 119.
15 This suggestion is in the context of Khorenatsi’s historical synthesis, which was an approach that was quite acceptable for many
historians of the 5th century. This is particularly true of Eghishē. On this subject, see in detail Stepanyan, 2018, 184 – 203.
16 This aspect of Khorenatsi’s narrative has been interwoven with the multidimensional concept of history. Due to that, the bare
concept obtained features of the vivid past and present. See in detail Stepanyan, 1991, 136 – 143.
32
According to Platonic theory, social actions are expressions of mens’ cha-
racters, which, in turn, depend on the correlation of the basic elements in their
souls – somatic, affective, and rational. Consequently, there are three main types
of characters with a predominance of appetitive, passionate, or rational elements.
Khorenatsi proceeds from this understanding when depicting the key actors of
Armenian history.17
Predominance of the somatic element. In this case, the affective and rational
elements are subordinate. Usually, this gives rise to base passions. The typical form
of this inversion is traceable in the tyrannical adversaries of the Armenians. The
Babylonian, Bēl, is the most relevant example of this. He was of the “[…] race of
giants, monstrous and enormous in force and size, who in their arrogance con-

ceived and gave birth to the impious plan of building the tower” [Khor., I, 9, 17].
The giant and his entourage are proud and ambitious, cruel and treacherous,
arrogant and cowardly. Among the Armenians, Khorenatsi traces similar features
in King Artavazd the Elder, stating, “But he gave no indication of any other act of
nobility or valor and occupied his time with eating and drinking. He wandered
about in the marshes, fens and rocky places, tending wild asses and swine.
Unconcerned with wisdom, valor or good repute, truly a servant and slave to his
stomach, he fattened his guts” [Khor., II, 22, 4].18 The author even describes a
woman of this type: “A certain woman of the Arsacid family, fat of body, horribly
ugly, and libidinous, whom no one could bear, gave birth to two children after an
illicit intercourse […]” [Khor., II, 37, 5].
Predominance of the affective element. In this case, the somatic and rational
elements are subordinate. The situation has two outlets. On the one hand, it is able to
generate positive emotions (and actions) – bravery and generousity, magnanimity
and piety, moderation and altruism. On the other, it is able to give rise to negative
emotions (and actions) – cruelty and cowardice, treachery and impiety, immode-
ration and egoism.19 Consequently, two affective actors are possible with opposite
impulses and motivations. Their influence on history may be measured by the
structure and character of their personality.
According to Khorenatsi, the best exemplar of the first case is Alexander the
Great: “[...] who was only three cubits high, though this did not impair the vigor of
17 Stepanyan, 1991, 165 – 171.

18 In the days of Artavazd II (55 – 34 B.C.), the situation in Greater Armenia was extremely polarized. The elite was divided into
two opposite parties. One of them comprised the clan nobility, which was intent on preserving its traditional liberties. Its
members were adherents of the old national culture based on myths and epic tales. The second party united the new
(bureaucratic) nobility consolidated around absolute royal authority. It was Hellenized. Most probably, the passage under
consideration expresses the point of view of the old nobility. See Stepanyan, 2012, 142 – 157.
19 These ideas of Platonic psychology were adopted by Christian intellectuals. Particularly, they are apparent in Gregory of Nyssa
(Greg. Nyssa, De virg. XV, 2, 18 – 20; XVI, 1, 6 – 12, 27 – 31 etc). See Cadenhead, 2018, 55- 57.
33
his spirit” [Khor., III, 8,3].20 Khorenatsi articulates this condition as moderate af-
fection (չափաւոր մոլութիւն).21 Among the Armenian historical actors, this is
obvious in the portraits of Aram, Ara the Handsome, Tigran Eruvandean, Artashēs
the Elder. Their style of governing, according to Khorenatsi, proceeds from Hayk’s
experience: “Among the giants he was the bravest and was famous, the opponent of
all who raised their hand to become absolute ruler over all the giants and heroes. He
intrepidly raised his hand against the tyranny of Bēl […]” [Khor., I,10, 2].22 The
portraits of some princes - Smbat Bagratuni, Erakhnavu Andzevatsi, Otta Amatuni,
Vasak Mamikonean - meet these criteria as well. Khorenatsi’s description of Smbat
is the most typical: “The stature of his limbs was in proportion to his valor; he pur-
sued virtue of the spirit; was notable for the beauty of his hair […] In addition to
being agile of person and body, he was moderate in all things and had a gift for
success in battle more than anyone else” [Khor., II, 52, 2]. There are also heroines of
this type: Princess Tigranuhi, Queen Ashkhen, Virgin Hripsime and her companions.
They are depicted as moderate and gentle, pious and devoted women. The author’s
formula of the character of Tigranuhi seems very pertinent: “[...] the most beautiful
and intelligent among women” [Khor., I, 27, 5].23
The best exemplar of the second case is the Roman triumvir, Marcus Antonius, who
“[…] roared like a wild lion, especially envenomed by Cleopatra […]. And not only for
the Armenians (was severe) but for many other kings in his efforts to rule over their do-
minions” [Khor., II, 23,2]. The same is true about the Sasanian king, Shapuh II – fierce,
vicious, merciless and treacherous [Khor., III, 35, 2 - 12]. Khorenatsi formulates this
condition as obsession with affections (ցանկականի մոլեգնութիւն).25 It is obvious in
some of the Armenian kings - Eruand the Last, Artavazd the Younger, Arshak II, and
Pap. Eruand the Last: “[…] a valiant man, vainglorious and proud” who had base
affections from his birth [Khor., II, 52, 2; 61, 11]. Arshak II: “[...] but in his vanity
continuously gloried in wine drinking and in songs of dancing girls (ի գինարբուս եւ
յերգս վարձակաց). He seemed more brave and noble than Achilles, but in truth was
like the lame and pointed-head Thersites. His own nobles rebelled against him until he
20 «[...] որ միայն երից կանգնոց ունէր զչափ հասակի, եւ ոչ զհոգւոյն խափանէր աշխոյժս»: It was an old rhetorical trope
to emphasise the greatness of Alexander due to his good affective features. It contains an obvious parallel with Ps.-Callisthenes,
179. Cf. Thomson, 1987, 261, n.4.
21 In Plato’s Phaedrus, Lysias names moderate affection the best expression of friendship (filiva) [Phaidr., 231a – 234c]. Later, in
Skepticism, it was linked with the search of an adequate opinion. Cf. Baird, 2011, 257.
22 In modern scholarship, this class of tales are defined as formative myths in so far as they contribute to the formation of
ethnic/national identities (origines gentium). See Pizarro, 2003, 43 – 44.
23 Despite their common features, these Christian women were devoted to the Lord ready to be martyred for their beliefs.
Armenian Church cultivated the image of the Hripsimean virgins to set up a new behavioral ideal for women. Ormanean,
2001, 79 – 81; cf. Phyllis, 1998, 50 – 53.
25 However, Eghishē is more eloquent in his description of this kind of person: “[…] when no outer enemy is found they wage war
against themselves” [Egh., I, 16]. Cf. Stepanyan, 2018, 184 – 188.
34
received the reward of his pride”[Khor., III, 19, 10].26 There are also eminent women
who personify this vice. The Assyrian queen, Semiramis, who, “in the folly of her great
passion […] had become madly enflamed” [Khor., I, 15, 6]. The same is true about the
famous Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. Among Armenian women, the author singles out
the impious queen, Paṙndzem, the consort of Arshak II. He states, “This Paṙndzem
worked an unheard and unimaginable crime worthy of inspiring horror in those who
heard of it. Through an unworthy priest, falsely so named, she mixed mortal poison in
the remedy of life and gave it to Olympias, Arshak’s first wife” [Khor., III, 24, 5].
Predominance of the rational element. The somatic and affective elements are
subordinate in this case. According to antique moral theory, this made up the basis of
the harmonic stance of men in different areas of their private and social activity.

Following the classical tradition (and first of all Plato), Philo of Alexandria
formulates the like situations as follows: “And the health of the soul is to have
its faculties, reason, high spirit and desire happily tempered with the reason in
command and reining in both the other two, like restive horses. The special
name of this health is temperance, that is swfrosuvnh or “thought-preserving”,
for it creates a preservation of our powers, namely, that of wise-thinking”
[Philo, Virt., III, 13].27
Khorenatsi finds Constantine the Great, the pious, merciful and moderate emperor
of Rome, to be the best personification of this harmony [Khor., II, 88, 10]. In
Armenian history, it is obvious in the characters of great reformers. Vagharshak
Arsacid: “[…] was a valiant and prudent man. He expanded his authority over his
territories; and as far as he was able, he fixed the statues of civil life for this country”
[Khor., II, 9, 3]. The main result of his activity was the good arrangement of Greater
Armenia (բարեկարգութիւն).28 Artashēs the Middle: “[...] in the time of Artashēs,
there was no land unworked in Armenia, neither of mountain nor plain, on account of
the prosperity of the country” [Khor., II, 56. 5].29 Trdat the Great: “He chided and
urged the greatest princes, and at the same time all the mass of common people, to
become true Christians so that the deeds of all might bear witness to the faith”
[Khor., III, 92, 6]. As it has been demonstrated before, these three kings were the
26 The first sentence contains a standard portrait of an apostate. Eghishē uses it to describe the treacherous Vasak Siuni: “He
continuously increased the allowances of the banqueting-hall, he extended the music of jollity, stretching out the nights in drunken
singing and lascivious dancing (յերգս արբեցութեան եւ ի կաքաւս լկտութեան)” [Egh., III, 87].
27 See in detail Bechtle, 1998, 377 – 392. On the possible collapse of this harmony into a chaotic situation, see Dillon, 1997, 190 – 197.
28 This is a correct translation of the Greek term eujtaxiva denoting a situation when different components of a society were
brought into balance. According to Plato, the balance would be comprised of power and liberty above all. The first represented
royal authority (coercion), while the second – the freedom of people (persuasion) [Plato, Leg., 719e – 722b]. Any deviation from
this balance was fraught with either tyranny or anarchy. Cf. Hall, 2004, 100 – 102.
29 We believe this passage is to be discussed in contrast to the author’s Lament, where Armenia is depicted as a land of total chaos
[Khor., III, 68, 39 - 40]. Stepanyan, 2018, 30.
35
authors of Armenian revival after periods of decline and disintegration. Their rational
projects played a decisive role in that purpose.30
With the conversion to Christianity (301 A.D.), clergymen took prominence in
Armenian spirituality and culture. In this vein, a group of intellectuals began to work
out a new paradigm of Armenian identity in accordance with Christian axiology.
This process was directed by the eminent leaders of the Church. Gregory the
Illuminator: “From the eastern regions of our land, he arose for us as a true dawn, a
spiritual sun and divine ray, an escape from the profound evil of idolatry, the source
of blessing and spiritual prosperity […]” [Khor., III, 91, 19]. Nersēs the Great:
“Summing a council of bishops in concert with laity, by canonical regulation he
established mercy, extirpating the root of inhumanity, which was the natural custom
of our land” [Khor., III, 20, 4]. Sahak Partev (whose death is assessed as an
irreparable loss for the country): “No longer I see your rational flock pastured in a
verdant place and by peaceful waters, nor gathered in a fold and protected from
wolves, but scuttered to the wilderness and precipes” [Khor., III, 68, 4].31 Blessed
Mesrop Mashtots: “At that time Mesrop arrived, bringing the script for our language,
and at the command of Vṙamshapuh and Sahak the Great he brought together selec-
ted children – intelligent, well spoken, with pleasing voices and long breath – and
established schools in every province” [Khor., III, 54, 3].32
In this connection, the following fact must be highlighted. All these ideal clergymen
lived and fulfilled their mission in the 4th century and in the beginning of the 5th, when
(after Trdat the Great) the royal authority degraded. The kings – Khosrov Kotak, Tiran
the Last, Arshak II, and Pap – personified moral and psychological vices. Certainly,
this interpretation proceeds from the clerical circles tracing the root cause of the fall of
Armenian Arsacids (428 A.D.) in the retreat of the kings from divine justice.33
This contrast is apparent in the case of the last Arsacid king of Armenia,
Artashir/Artashēs. Two figures are opposed – the king and the catholicos, Sahak
Partev. In opposition to the ideal archbishop, the king is depicted as a person full of
somatic and affective vices: “But Artashir, the king of Armenia, began to plunge
without restraint into licentious pleasures to the extent that all the princes became
disgusted with him. Coming to Sahak the Great they raised a complaint and invited
30 This triad of kings, in the narrative of Khorenatsi, has been counterpoised by the church triad – Gregory the Illuminator, Nersēs
the Great and Sahak Partev. The common feature of both triads is creativity resulting in new paradigms of Armenian identity.
31 The church triad was most probably canonized in the 5th century. During that period, the Armenian Church drew up its history
as an irreversible movement to God. It was believed that the Church began to personify a new national identity. In this way, it
also coined the concept of its priority over royal authority. Scholars think that the latter was brought to completion by Catholicos
Sahak Partev in his renowned Canons. See Thomson, 1962, 379; Garsoïan, 1989, 566.
32 On the whole, the Armenian historical tradition has played down the role of King Vṙamshapuh in the history of the invention of
the Armenian script system. Most probably, the king of Persarmenia had enlisted the support of the Sasanian court. See
Stepanyan, 2018, 61 – 64.
33 On these events, see in detail Traina, 2004, 353 – 366.
36
him to help them in denouncing to the Persian king, in deposing their own king”
[Khor., III, 63,2; cf. Parp., I, 14, 7 - 17].
Condemning the king for his negative traits, the catholicos, nevertheless, tries to
save his lost lamb and bring him back to the righteous path. But this endeavor is in
vain – the fall of the Armenian Arsacids proves to be inevitable: “Though they
(nakharars) disowned Artashēs/Artashir, things were not as they said, and those
listening did not believe them. But they had resolved to abolish the Arsacid line’s
rule in the kingdom”. [Parp., I, 14, 17].34
2. Status of the Household/Family

This aspect of Khorenatsi’s narrative outlines two possible approaches for
interpreting the problem – philosophical (moral) and legal. They make up the main
focus of this part of our investigation. We propose that only the combination of
these aspects will give an opportunity to perceive the role of family (and its
varieties) in Armenian History.35
a. Philosophical aspect of family
According to Aristotle, the household/family comes before the state and contains
the essential features of it. The philosopher traces the most important of them in the
natural intention of sexes to complement each other for the continuation of life and
happiness. It makes up the foundation of the household, the first essential form of
social partnership. The latter, in its turn, is based on a pair of opposite relations – ruling
and being ruled [Aristot., Polit., I, 12, 1259b, 5 - 10].36 The members of a household –
wife, children and servants – participate in it in accordance with the peculiarity of their
souls: “The deliberative (rational) part of the soul is entirely missing from a slave; a
woman has it but it lacks authority; a child has it but it is incompletely developed”
[Aristot., Polit., I, 13, 1260a, 10].37
Philo of Alexandria applied this approach in his numerous works to explain bib-
lical subjects.38 A principal similarity existed between Greek and biblical families -
34 On the position of the Catholicos during these crucial events, see Ormanean, 2001, 346 – 347. Cf. Garsoïan, 1997, 93;
Redgate, 1998, 146 – 147.
35 Due to the scarcity of the information from primary sources, we decided to omit the problem of the differences between rural
and urban families apparent in Graeco-Roman world. We depart from their (imagined) identity.
36 According to Aristotle, the household/family is a focus of different relations - from biological sexuality to ownership and high
morality. See in detail Saunders, 1999, 125 – 129; Nagle, 2006, 19 – 30.
37 Through friendship bonds, it gives rise to polis, the best form of social partnership. The latter is viewed as the focus of
individual and common happiness [Aristot., Pol., VII, 8, 1328a, 35]. See Adkins, 1984, 29 – 30.
38 This approach is obvious in different aspects of Philo’s works starting from the cosmic creation to family and morality. Cf. Bos,
1998, 69 – 73.
37
both of them were monogamic.39 For the philosopher, the patriarch Noah personified
the ideal of paterfamilias. Applying appropriate crafts and skills, he was the best
cultivator of the earth and human souls. [Philo, Plant., 17 19].40
At the same time, an obvious difference existed between them as well. Like to the
Aristotelian family, the biblical family was patriarchal and united two or three genera-
tions. Early Christian thought developed this understanding of defining a virtuous
family as an embodiment of God’s covenant with the purpose of securing a peaceful
domestic life, where all members performed their (even ritualized) duties and
responsibilities [I Pet., 2: 13 – 37; I Tim., 2: 8 - 19].41 The father of the household was
considered to be the guarantor of family harmony before the Lord: “Whoever loves
father or mother or son or daughter more than me is not worthy to me”[Matt.,10: 37].42
However, in extreme cases, in the sight of God, the differences between
family members may even be erased. A like situation is described by Egheshē.
It happened in the days of the Great Rebellion of the Armenians against
Sasanian dominance led by Vardan Mamikonian: “Thenceforth the lord
seemed no greater than the servant or the pampered noble than the rough
villager, and no one was behind another in valor. One willing heart was
shown by all – men and women, old and young, all united by Christ”
[Eghishē, III, 116 - 117].43
Throughout of Armenian history, Khorenatsi views various forms of family inte-
gration (տուն, երդ, ծուխ) based on polygamy or monogamy.44 Appian’s record
about the family of Tigran II seems rather critical. In 69 B.C., when the capital of
Greater Armenia Tigranakert was sieged by L. Lucullus, the king “[...] sent about six
thousand (of his solders), who broke through the Roman line to the tower, and seized
and brought away the king’s concubines” [App., Mitr., 85].
In Greater Armenia, monogamy became the dominant form of marriage after the
Ashtishat Council “of bishops in concert with the laity”. It was held in 356 on the
initiative of Archbishop Nersēs the Great. It aimed to establish “[…] mercy,
extirpating the root of inhumanity, which was the natural custom in our land” [Khor.,
III, 20, 4]. Before that, though the country had converted to Christianity, polygamy
39 Philo traces an essential feature in this, due to which the two societies are comparable in structure and ideology. Cf. Sterling, 2014,
133 – 147.
40 Cain is considered as his opposite who is only a worker of earth without skills and moral values, causing the gravest crime - fratricide. Cf.
Geljon, Runia, 2013, 101 – 119.
41 On the interpretation of this theme in the context of Greco-Roman and biblical social and cultural traditions, see Barton, 1997, 81 – 89.
42This ideal mode of relations, according to common perception, could be achieved only through an appropriate education. Barton,1994,
23 – 56.
43 In other words, the Armenian covenant consisted of images of the Lord (i}ndalmai tou~ Qeou~s). They indicated the highest rank of
human being who had reached communion with Him. It was believed they reached this level through ascetic devotion and experience.
Selminen, 2017, 63 – 68.
44 See in detail Hovhannisyan, 1973, 195 – 208. On the problem of the patriarchal Armenian family, see Karapetyan, 1958, 25 – 60.
38
dominated.45 It is notable that eunuchs occupied an eminent position among the high
officials of the royal court.46
Nevertheless, in both cases (polygamy or monogamy), one feature of the household
was stable – it represented a combination of the abovementioned pair of role behaviors
- ruling and being ruled. Additionally, every household was set up according to the
same principle of triple symmetry and demonstrated three variants - family integration
- excess, deficiency or balance. While the first two variants concerned the somatic and
affective (female) elements, the third pole was identified with the rational (male)
element.
Predominance of somatic and affective elements in the household. The first type
of these classes of deviation was connected to excess while the second with the

deficiency of the mentioned elements. Usually, they gave rise to negative human
passions and acts. Khorenatsi traces similar situations in the households of the
fierce rivals of Armenia. As for excess, it initiated the tyranny of the paterfamilias:
Babylonian Bēl and Median Astiag were the best examples of that [Khor., I, 10,4;
26, 2 - 5]. As for the deficiency, it generated a reverse condition of the dominance
of the female element. Semiramis and Cleopatra were distinctive representatives of
this [Khor., I, 15, 6; II, 21, 2 - 4].
Vicious forms of the household were characteristic for lower epoques of Arme-
nian history. The limitless authority of the father generated family tyranny. In this
vein, Eruand the Last was the first among the Armenian kings. He is depicted by
Khorenatsi, on one hand, as a courageous and strong person, and as an insidious
and hypocritical one on the other: “However, the more liberal he was the more
hateful he became. Everyone knew that he was not giving generously but spending
out of fear. And he did not so much make friends of those to whom he gave much
as make enemies of those to whom he gave less generously” [Khor., III, 45, 5 -
7].47 The same was true about the family of Artavazd the Last. But the family of
Arshak II occupied first place with numerous acts of impiety and murder [Khor., II,
61, 11, III,21 - 27].
As for the deficiency of family integration, it generated a reverse situation with the
domination of the female element. According to Khorenatsi, this is most traceable in
45 The Canons of Nersēs the Great allow us to conclude that polygamy was prevalent even among the clergymen: “Although clerics
(գրակարդացք) and officials (պաշտաւնեայք), the bigamists must be detained by soldiers for perfidy [...]” [Kanonagirk', 1964, 480].
46 The following fact is rather notable. As highlighted above, although they had converted to Christianity, the Armenian kings still had
honored and powerful eunuchs. Among them, the authors point out the princely house of Mardpetuni and the valiant Drastamat: “As for
the eunuch Drastamat, in the days of Tiran king of Armenia and of his son Arshak of Armenia, he had been the prince of the royal district
and had been entrusted with the treasures of the fortress of Angegh and with all the royal fortresses in those regions” [Buz., V, 7, 7]. On
this curiosity, see Adonts, 1908, 319 – 320; Manandyan, 1934, 64 – 68.
47 This image has been composed in accordance with the principle of antinomy. In Hellenistic political theory, benevolence
(eujergesiva) was thought to be the main characteristic of every good ruler. He practiced that due to his kingly character (ajnhvr
basilikovς) but not in private. Goodenough, 1928, 68; De Callatay, Lorber, 2011, 424 - 425.
39
the households of the sons of Artashēs the Middle: “[...] the envy of the sons of
Artashēs and their mutual provocation brought about by their wives” [Khor., II, 49, 2;
cf. 53, 10].48 The same is true about Arshak III, who frequently acts with the instigation
of his wife [Khor., III, 43, 4 - 5]. Regarding these kings, the following formula is quite
appropriate, for they all “[…] ruled without exhibiting any brave deed worthy of
record” [Khor., II, 62, 3].
Family corruption under excesses and deficiencies is rather precisely formulated
in the renowned Lament, which concludes the narrative of Khorenatsi’s History.
Houses “are sacked and possessions ravaged”; children are “lazy to study and eager
to teach”; masters and servants are likeminded [Khor., III, 68, 33, 36, 43].49
Predominance of the rational element in the household. In Khorenatsi’s narrative,
Armenian history begins with an ideal patriarchal household which belongs to the
hero-eponym, Hayk. He left Babylon and moved north “[...] to the land of Ararat,
which is in the northern regions, with his sons and daughters and sons’ sons, martial
men about three hundred in number, and other domestic servants and the outsiders who
had joined his service and all his effects” [Khor., I, 10, 6; cf. Anonym, I, 1 - 2]. In other
words, the household-clan consisted of two categories of members: a. agnates – the di-
rect descendants of the patriach (consanguinity), b. cognates – the wives and domestic
servants, and outsiders – the servants who joined later (heterosanguinity).50 All of them
were under the authority of the patriarch and had to obey and fulfill his commands.51 In
this, Khorenatsi sees the guarantee of the successes of the Haykids – to defeat the horde
of Bēl, to obtain and populate the northern land – the future Armenia.52
The ancient epic tale of Hayk and Haykids has been revised according to
Hellenistic political theory and rhetoric. This ideological trend is apparent in
the concept of terra nullius (nobody’s land). The fact is that Alexander and his
generals considered the subjugation of new countries in this light. For them,
the moral, religious, cultural, and ethnic aspects of the problem were of
special importance. In accordance with this, Khorenatsi states: “[…] in many
places of our land there were dwelling a few scattered men before the arrival
of our original ancestor Hayk [Khor., I, 12, 14]”.53
48«[...] եւ նախանձ որդւոցն Արտաշիսի եւ գրգռութիւն ընդ միմեանս ի ձեռն կանանց»:

49 «գերփումն տանց եւ հափշտակութիւն ստացուածոց», «աշակերտք հեղգք առ ուսումն եւ փոյթ առ ի վարդապե-
տել», «իշխանք [...] ծառայիցն համամիտք»:
50 On these two categories of servants/slaves, see Eremyan, 1951, 21.
51 About key theories regarding this problem, see Waters, 1989, 195 – 207. On the Armenian household/clan (աղխ) and its
parallels in Georgian society, see Eremyan, 1948, 35 – 37. Cf. Karapetyan, 1958, 54 – 56.
52On the problem of historicity of the epic tale of the dissemination of the Haykids in the Northern Lands and the formation of
Armenia, see in detail Sargsyan, 2006, 46 – 70.
53 This concept gained a new interpretation in the Industrial Age as an ideological justification of colonial expansion. It was even combined
with the basic Christian idea of creatio ex nihile. On this ideological metamorphosis, see in detail Bauman, 2009, 88 – 104.
40
Khorenatsi believes that this kind of family integration was characteristic for the
top epoques of Armenian history – under Vagharshak Arsacid, Artashēs the
Middle, and Trdat the Great. As a rule, they embarked on reform activity from their
household. Vagharshak provides the best example: “In the royal palace, he estab-
lished fixed rules, distinguishing the times for audience, councils, feasts, and amus-
ements” [Khor., II, 8, 36].54
However, these descriptions refer only to the noble households; the author has
no relevant information about the polygamy among commoners. Probably, it was
a marker of high social rank. In this vein, the following fact also seems worthy to
be taken into consideration. At the end of the 5th B.C., traveling in Armenia and
visiting numerous villages, and describing their everyday life, Xenophon, in his

Anabasis, provides no evidence of polygamy in Armenian families.
b. Legal aspect of family integration.
It has been noted above that family relations in ancient Armenia were regulated
in accordance with, on one hand, the traditional (habitual) right, and Iranian (Zoro-
astrian) legal norms on the other. After the conversion to Christianity, biblical legal
norms gradually replaced them. 55 This basically changed the social and moral
context of society. Inherently, this transition made up the essence of the evolution
of the Armenian family over time.56
The patriarchal family was based on land ownership. Clan property was under
the control of the paterfamilias (տանուտէր). Essentially, it belonged to the past,
present and future generations. 57 The present generation was thought of as a
collective land holder obliged to save and transfer it to descendants. 58 In the
History of Khorenatsi, this is best of all traceable in the example of the royal clan.
The king was the paterfamilias responsible for the welfare of his relatives
(Arsacids). He dwelt in the royal domain (ոստան), Ayrarat, with his family and
54 In an essential sense, the person of the king, his house and court were considered as the center of the country. Hence the
political, administrative, religious and charismatic impulses emanated to the far peripheries, securing the unity of the country.
This tradition reached back to Assyria and came to complete fruition in Hellenistic states. Strootman, 2007, 111 – 124. On the
Armenian experience, see Stepanyan, 2012, 280 - 291.
55 On this process, see Ghltchean, 1913, 7 – 9; Samuelyan, 1939, 44 – 48.
56 Ghltchean, 1904, 6 – 11.
57 Cf. Karapetyan, 1958, 89 – 90.
58 This structure shows typological parallels with other patriarchal (clan) societies, and the fundamental ideas of M. Weber seem
quite relevant to describe it. See Weber, 1963, 1018 – 1034. M. Weber defined this relationship in terms of traditional
patrimony. However, in Armenian studies, there is a steady tradition of tracing features of eternal feudalism in ancient Armenia.
Adonts, 1908, 453 – 479; Manandyan, 1934, 256 - 266; Toumanoff, 1963, 108 – 129; Garsoïan, 1989, 49 – 50; Garsoïan,
1997, 75 – 77.
41
the crown-prince. The other members of the clan were allotted land portions in the
provinces Hashteank, Aḷiovit and Aṙberan.59
From this point of view, the following account of Khorenatsi regarding
Artavazd the Elder seems very relevant: “He established his brothers and sisters as
heir in the provinces of Aḷiovit and Aṙberan, leaving for them the royal portion in
the villages of those provinces with their special incomes and rents, according to
the example of his kinsmen in the regions of Hashteank, so that they would have a
more honorable and royal position than these latter Arsacids. He only prescribed
that they could not live in Ayrarat, the royal residence” [Khor., II, 22, 2 - 3].
In another passage, the author informs us that the distribution of allotments was
brought about per capita (ըստ մարդաթուի) and it was repeated from time to time
[Khor., II, 62, 8]. It is quite notable that the same system worked in communities of
peasants (ռամիկք).60 It must be added that besides participation in collective pro-
perty, members of the nobility could have their private estates (դաստակերտք, ա-
գարակք) obtained for state service or bought.61
The experience of the royal clan demonstrates that women also had their portion in
clan property. In the cited record, Artavazd the Elder recognized the right of inhe-
ritance for both his brothers and sisters. Other passages from Khorenatsi confirm this
information. In this regard, the most relevant is the story of Spandarat Kamsarakan,
whose clan was massacred by Arshak II: “Not one of them escaped except Spandarat,
the son of Arshavir, for he had an Arsacid wife and had settled in her hereditary lands
(բնակեցաւ ի նորին ժառանգութիւն) in the regions of Tarawn and Hashteank on the
grounds that he had a quarrel with his uncle Nerseh” [Khor., III, 31, 5].62
This is in full accordance with the Iranian law practice compiled in the
corpus entitled Matakdan i-Hazar Datastan (The Book of a Thousand
Judges). 63 The case under consideration can be defined as apamānd –
“succession, inheritance” that supplied a daughter a share (bahr ī duxt) of
father's property along with the shares of son (bahr ī pus) and wife (bahr ī
59 On the royal domain of the Armenian Artaxiads and Arsacids and the legal settlement of relations of royal family members, see
Manandyan, 1934, 191 – 195.
60 On the social status of village communities and their members - ṙamiks and shinakans - see Manadyan, 1934, 148 – 171;
Eremyan,1948, 38 – 40.
61 On the private estates of nobility in the Hellenistic world and Greater Armenia, see Eremyan,1948, 40 – 43; Sargsyan, 1962,
39 – 53, Sargsyan, 1967, 97 – 101. On the etymology and social significance of the term dastakart in Sasanian Iran, see
Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 349 – 351.
62 In other words, it was a matrilocal marriage. This fact is confirmed by unwritten (mores maiorum) and written legal norms of
Medieval Armenia. See Ghltchean, 1904, 7 – 9; Barkhudaryan, 1966, 26 – 28. In his renowned Datastanagirk' (Corpus
Legum), Mkhitar Gosh traces the Armenian woman’s status from the Mosaic Laws [Gosh, Datastanagirk', II, 62 – 63]. In his
time, the memory of the Iranian legal heritage was entirely erased.
63 The Sasanian Law-Book contained legal norms reaching back to the earliest times of Iranian history. It was enriched by
Zoroastrian religious dogmas and practices. See Macuch, 2015, 290 – 291.
42
zan) [Matakdan, 44, 12; 51, 15; 52, 10 etc]. The only difference was that the
son-heir received a double share (bahr ī dō(v)īh).64
Probably, Eghishē had this exact right of inheritance in mind, highlighting that,
after the Great Revolt against Sasanian domination (450 - 451 A.D.), Armenian
noblewomen began to restore devastated family estates, replacing their deceased
husbands and sons [Eghishē, 93-108]. In other word, they became the actual heads of
their clans, obliged to preserve and pass on the collective property to the next genera-
tion.65
These legal regulations primarily concerned the well-arranged families (cum
menu mariti). In the Matakdan, it is defined as pāticšāyīh – a full-right marriage.

In this case, through a sacred marriage ritual, a woman abandoned her native
agnatic group (and the authority of her father or elder brother) to enter the
authority of her husband or his father. She became a legitimate member of the
new agnatic group (zan ī pāticšāyīhā) and her potential sons and daughters would
be recognized as rightful members of the latter – legitimate son (pus ī pāti-
cšāyīhā) and daughter (duxt ī pāticšāyīhā) [Matakdan, 36, 2; 36, 16 – 17; 44, 4;
49, 3; 70, 6 etc].66 It is comparable with the Roman marriage known as confarre-
atio with absolute patria potestas over a woman in the agnatic group of her hus-
band.67 She gained this status by going through a ritual of adoption.
Khorenatsi describes an excellent example of this case on the occasion of Trdat the
Great: “When Trdat arrived in our land, he sent General Smbat, the father of Bagarat,
to bring the maiden Ashkhen, the daughter of Ashkhadar, to be his wife. This maiden
was no less tall than the king. He ordered her to be inscribed as an Arsacid, to be vested
with purple, and to be crowned in order to become the king’s bride” [Khor., II, 83, 2 -
4]. Undoubtedly, Khorenatsi is talking about the ritual of adoption.
In some cases, the Armenian kings kidnapped their brides and paid a ransom for
them. Khorenatsi concerns this practice retelling the story of the marriage of Artashēs
the Middle. He kidnapped the princess of the Alans, Satenik, and paid a high bride
price. He entered into a pāticšāyīh marriage with her. On these grounds: “She was
the first of Artashēs' wives and bore him Artavazd and many others [...]” [Khor., II,
50, 18].68 Let us highlight once again that only the children born in this marriage
were the prime heirs of the paternal property.
64 See in detail apamānd in Perikhanyan, 1997 (Glossary), 337.

65 According to European travelers, this traditional right was valid even in the beginning of the 19th century. Barkhudaryan, 1966, 25.
66 Pāticšāyīh/Pāticšāyīhā – in general “full-right relations”. In the family, it denoted the limits of rights and responsibilities of the
lawful members. Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 380. In a more particular sense, the term denoted the patriarchal authority of the
head of a household (katak xvātāy) - paterfamilias. Consequently, full-right marriages were under his authority. Only in this form of
marriage could a person of full legal capacity be born (twānīk). Cf. Shaki, 1971, 323 – 324; Perikhanian, 1983, 639 - 644.
67 Patria potestas, Nickolas, 1992, 789.
68 Therefore, the suggestion that upper-class families were monogamic in Armenia cannot be accepted. Cf. Barkhudaryan, 1966, 29.
43
Besides the full-right marriage, another form of family was in practice as well. In
that case, a woman being not enrolled in the agnatic group of her husband would not be
under his (or his father’s) authority. With her nearest kinsmen, she continued to share
the authority of her father (or eldest brother) as a legitimate member of her native agna-
tic group. In other words, her marriage was sine manu maritimi. The Iranian legal
practice defined that as bagaspān or˙xvasrūyonīh [Matakdan, 21, 9; 41, 10].69
Most probably, Khorenatsi has this form of marriage in mind when describing
the family of the prince Trdat Bagratuni, who had married Eraneak, the daughter of
King Tiran: “She hated her husband Trdat and was continuously grumbling and
complaining, lamenting that she, a beautiful woman, lived with an ugly man, and
that being of noble family she lived with a man of ignorable origin” [Khor., II, 63,
3].70 It seems true about the prince Gnel Arsacid as well. The nephew of King Ar-
shak II neglected the ancestral rule and dwelt in Ayrarat, in the township (ավան)
Kuash with his (blinded and retired) grandfather, King Tiran [Khor., III, 22, 3].
He gained the respect of the nakharars: “They were pleased and friendly toward
him and gave him their children. These he accepted and grandly equipped them with
arms and finery, so they loved him all the more” [Khor., III, 22, 5]. Arshak
demanded that he leave for the provinces Hashteank, Aḷiovit or Aṙberan, and Gnel
obeyed him. But soon it became clear that he had inherited Shahapivan – the estate of
his maternal grandfather Gnel Gnuni – situated in the district Tsaghkotn in a
neighborhood close to the royal domain [Khor., III, 22, 12 13].71
There was also a third form of marriage defined in Iranian legal practice as sturīh –
a modification of sine manu maritimi. It was aimed at securing the continuity of the
given household. More often, this form was in use when a paterfamilias died without
leaving a male heir; his widow or mature daughter were obliged to marry to provide
him with an offspring. Two forms of sturīh marriage were considered lawful: a. natural
(or levirate), when the widow or daughter married an agnate, b. legal, when the new
husband was chosen from outside. Both forms are apparent in Khotenatsi's text.
The most obvious reference to this form of marriage is contained in a passage of
Khorenatsi regarding King Tiran the Elder: “In his days, there was a youth of the
clan of Andzevatsis named Erakhnavu, who was noble in everything. He married the
last wives of (the late) Artavazd brought from Greece. In view of the fact that
69 Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 344.

70 The carefree behavior of Eraneak testifies that, despite her marriage, she considered herself an Arsacid princess and had a share
in royal household property. However, she was forced to live in the Bagratuni court in a full-right marriage. Most probably, this
status was regulated by a special agreement.
71 This implies that Gnel preferred his maternal lineage and accepted the inheritance of his maternal grandfather, Gnel Gnuni. In
the terms of the Iranian legal experience, it meant that his mother had been a stūr-duxt (daughter) obliged to give a legal heir to
her native (paternal) household. If this suggestion is right, Gnel was now considered a duxtdat son. Cf. Shaki, 1975, 48 – 53;
Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 343.
44
Artavazd had left no children, the king bestowed on him Artavazd’s all house, since
he was known as a kind and frugal and modest in bodily passions. The king liked
him and gave him also the second rank that belonged to Artavazd” [Khor., II, 62, 9 -
11]. The abovementioned Prince Trdat Bagratuni also was born in the marriage under
consideration. According to the author: “King Tiran married his daughter Eraneak to
a certain Trdat Bagratuni, the son of Smbatuhi, daughter of the valiant Smbat […]”
[Khor., II, 63, 2]. Probably, the prince Smbat had no male heir, and Smbatuhi
entered in sturīh marriage to secure the continuity of her paternal clan.72
This approach provides a key to a new interpretion of the life-drama of Arshak II.
His marriage to the Roman Emperor’s relative, Olympias, was childless. He kept his
elder nephew, Tirit, close, as crown-prince in Ayrarat ostan. However, the latter saw

in Gnel a serious concurrent and began to spin an intrigue against him. He convinced
the king that Gnel was involved in a regicidal conspiracy. Gnel’s fate was sealed.
Soon, the prince was killed on a royal hunt. According to tradition, it happened with
full consent of the insidious and cunning king.
The next fragment of this tale continues to “prove” a negative characteristic of
Arshak. He seduced the widow of Gnel, the lady Paṙandzem: “However, Arshak
showed no repentance or contrition but shamelessly rifled the treasuries and inheri-
tance of the dead man and even married his wife Paṙandzem. From her was born a
son who was called Pap” [Khor., III, 24, 4].73
Faustos Buzand describes a version of the events which differs only in details.
It presents a love triangle drama between Gnel, Tirit and Arshak who are
charmed by Paṙandzem, the beautiful and modest princess of the Siuni clan. She
has been married to Gnel, who falls victim to the intrigue planned by Tirit with the
silent support of Arshak. Tirit asks permission to marry the widow, but the king
refuses him. Moreover, he murders the crown-prince and marries the widow:
“Paṙandzem bore a boy to the king and he was called Pap, and he was nursed
and raised to manhood” [Buz., IV, 11, 70 75].
The discussion of the passage in light of the sturīh marriage takes away the main
charge against the king. Indeed, besides rumors, we do not have any real evidence
regarding the participation of the king in the murder of Gnel. One thing is undeniable.
Since the prince had passed away childless, the king, as the head of the Arsacid clan,
72 In the terms of the Iranian legal experience, the princess Smbatuhi was the stūr-duxt of her father and her son became the full-
right heir of the Bagratuni noble house.
73 Usually scholars discuss this passage as a typical epic tale, focusing their attention on its literary merits. This approach obscures
the historical and (particularly) legal context of the narrative. In this, they proceed from the interpretations of Faustos Buzand.
Cf. Harutyanyan, 1987, 112 – 115. Meanwhile, careful observation is able to uncover numerous new aspects. In our concrete
case, it is the stūr marriage proposed to Paṙandzem by Tirit and Arshak. Cf. Macuch, 2006, 591 – 594. Both proposals were in
full accordance with pre-Christian (pre-Ashtishat) legal practices of the Armenians.
45
was obliged to marry the widow of his nephew, to protect his property and pass it on to
a legal son.74 Paṙandzem bore a boy, Pap, but Arshak was only his stur father. The
long-expected child legally belonged to the dead Gnel.
According to Iranian legal practice, King Arshak was the pit ī čakar –
natural but not legal father of Pap. Respectively, by his social status, the boy
was the čakardat pus – natural but not legal son of the king.75
As it has been highlighted above, polygamy (and its relics) was outlawed at the
Council of Ashtishat: “These two things he (Nersēs the Great) abolished from the
princely families: first, the marriage of close relatives, which they practiced for the
sake of their own property; and second, the crimes they committed over the dead
according to the heathen custom” [Khor., III, 20, 12; cf. Buz., IV, 4, 42]. It is about
the incestuous marriages that were common in Zoroastrian family law - xvēdodah.
Moreover, Zoroastrian axiology indicated that as a sacred form of matrimony.76
Regarding the reign of Tigran IV (20 – 6 B.C.), Tacitus highlights:

“Neither Tigranes, nor his children reigned long, although they, following
the foreign custom, married and shared the throne between them” [Tacit.,
Ann, II, 3]. This form of marriage became an object of ardent criticism of the
Armenian authors of the 5th century - especially Eghishē [Egh., II, 307].77
The Ashtishat regulation, naturally, had yet not rooted out the old custom entirely.
Nevertheless, Arshak had a serious problem naturalizing of Pap as his legal son. It must
be taken into consideration that after Ashtishat, the king lost the right of having two
(and more) wives since monogamy was declared as the norm of family integration. The
royal family was expected to be an example of true Christian morality.
According to our authors, the problem was settled by (now declared treacherous
and merciless) Paṙandzem who poisoned her rival, Queen Olympias [Khor., III, 24, 6;
Buz., IV, 15, 79]. We do not know if this information is accurate. One thing is apparent
- it gave Paṙandzem a chance to reshape her marriage with the king and be declared as
a full-right royal consort. We can also suppose that she was “inscribed as an Arsacid”
74 In the Mātakdān ī Hazār Dātastān, this form of matrimony is defined as a stūr ī būtak – a natural stūr marriage when the
deceased man’s widow entered into nuptials with one of his agnates. Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 387. Sometimes, it was
called a čakarīh – levirate marriage. Carlson, 1984, 103 – 108. However, this form of marriage was present in many traditions
as well. The biblical story of Tamar and Judah is the best illustration of that [Gen., 38, 6 - 26].
75 Cf. Perikhanian, 1983, 649- 650; Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 347; Shaki, 1999, 187 – 189.
76 It was considered the most desirable form of patrilineal (or agnatic) matrimony. Cf. Shaki, 1999, 186; Macuch, 2017, 330.
77 “Daughters shall be [wives] for fathers and sisters for brothers. Mothers shall not withdraw from sons, and grandchildren shall
ascend the couch of grandfathers”. Cf. Christensen, 1944, 323 – 324. Eghishē’s passage reflects the Christian axiology.
Meanwhile, this form of marriage was characteristic of many Hellenistic ruling houses. It was designed to denote their particular
social and religious status. See Ager, 2005, 1 – 34.
46
and crowned. Respectively, she took over all responsibilities arising from this status as
part of the royal house as Greater Armenia. On these grounds, it was quite natural, Pap
was legitimized and declared the crown-prince of Greater Armenia.78 Thence, the con-
tinuity of royal lineage was secured.
According to Iranian law, the child (natural son) now gained a new status
and became the legal son of the king (pus ī dātastān). As for Paṙandzem, she
abandoned the status of widow-stūr and, “divorcing” the late prince Gnel, was
recognized as the rightful royal consort (zan ī pāticšāyīhā).
These facts and considerations shed new light on the last days of Queen Paṙan-
dzem: it was during the four-year war (364 - 368), King Arshak was treacherously

arrested by Shapuh II. The Persians captured, plundered and devastated the country
in collaboration with Armenian rebels. The apostates, Meruzhan Artsruni and
Vahan Mamikonian, were merciless [for details, Buz., IV, 58 - 59]. It caused
horror. Many nakharars – even those who previously took the side of the Persians –
“fled to the land of the Greeks” with their families. However, Queen Paṙandzem
did not join them, she “[...] did not obey her husband's summons, but with the
treasures took refuge in the castle Artagetk” [Khor., III, 35, 5].
Our principal authors do not reveal the real cause of this strange behavior. Indeed,
why did the queen not leave the country? Was she unaware of the danger? Hardly.
The only reasonable answer is as follows – as emphasized above, the full-right royal
consort felt herself responsible for the royal house and the whole country. It must
also be added that this behavior was in full accordance with important evidence from
Eghishē - after the Great Revolt, noblewomen began to restore their family estates to
secure the transfer of them to the next generation.79
To complete this aspect of our discussion, the following needs to be taken into
consideration - in pre-Ashtishat families, concubines (հարճք) existed as well. 80
Young, beautiful and attractive, they belonged to eminent nobles marking their high
social prestige. They were equated with servants but with a notable difference – they
were called to satisfy the subtle demands of their masters. Sometimes, they were even
in close relationships with them and this guaranteed them power and influence.81
78 Iranian law provided a special procedure for this transition [Mat., 28, 7; 42, 14; 71, 6]. Cf. Perikhanian, 1983, 654 – 655; Peri-
khanian, 1997 (Glossary), 353.
79 “They forgot their feminine weakness and became men heroic at spiritual warfare. […] The widows among them became
second brides of virtue, removing from themselves the opprobrium of widowhood” [Egh., The Names of the Princes, 93, 97]. Cf.
Stepanyan, 2018, 196 – 197.
80 This Armenian term most probably has an Iranian origin – harčī, though it is not attested. Acharyan, 1977, 60 – 61; cf.
Shahbazi, 2003, 672.
81 The institute of concubines, besides the aforementioned aspects, played an important role in regulating of the situation in courts
through unofficial instructions, gossip and extravagant behavior. With “close royal servants”, - eunuchs, perfumers, doctors,
tailors, hairdressers – they took care of the body of a king. It is believed that the Hellenistic court hierarchy was mostly
influenced by the Achaemenid experience. Cf. Brosius, 1996, 94 – 95; Strootman, 2017, 121 – 142.
47
Antique authors inform us about the concubines of Tigran II. In Khorenatsi’s text,
two of them are eminent – Mandu and Nazinik. The first belonged to Argam, the
head of the clan Muratsean, the second to Bakur Siuni – “very remarkable for beauty
and carriage”. Usually, they played, sang and danced (sang by hands) to entertain the
master and his guests. They were rated highly and at times became the object of lust
of others [Khor., II, 51, 5; 63, 6].82 It seems, the Iranian term tan (body) indicated just
this group of slaves. We have no information about their children. They most
probably occupied the status of bastard-servants.
3. Isomorphism of Household and Society
Some aspects of this isomorphism have already been the focus of our discussion.
Now, the problem is to summarize and systematize them. For this purpose, the
following needs to be highlighted - family and society integration, according to
Khorenatsi, were composed in accordance with three basic principles: common
blood, reason and belief (արեամբ, բանիւ, դենիւ).83 They corresponded to the three
forms of Armenian identity: ethnie, political nation and religious covenant.84
The first principle – common blood - indicates the level where the two poles of
integration (household and society) are identical. A similar situation is the example
of Hayk and his descendants. Armenia (Հայք) is depicted as an expanded household,
the nucleus of which consists of blood relatives (agnates).85
According to the official ideology, they gradually spread to the far borders of the
land, therefore it is named House of the Armenians (Տուն հայոց): “This Hayk, son of
Torgom, son of Tiras, son of Gomer, son of Japheth was the ancestor of the
Armenians” [Khor., I, 12, 36].
In this respect the following fact deserves to be highlighted - Khorenatsi’s
Маecеnas, the hazarapet of Persarmenia Sahak Bagratuni, proposed him to
depict the past of Armenia as a family history: “[...] to write the history of
our nation in a long and useful work, to deal with the kings and the princely
clans and families: who descended from whom, what each one of them did,
which of various tribes are indigenous and native and which are of foreign
origin but naturalized” [Khor., I, 3, 10].86
82 Khorenatsi’s story of Prince Trdat Bagratuni and the concubine Nazinik is the best illustration of that [Khor., II, 63, 6 - 12].
83 This is the basic ideology of so-called patriarchal societies in different parts of world from China to Western Europe. Cf.
Weber, 1968, 1071 – 1076; Hamilton, 1984, 393 – 425; Hamilton, 1990, 79 – 102.
84 Cf. Stepanyan, 1991, 146 – 156.
85 From the point of view modern theory, terra nulius was semiotized (and recreated) through the names of Hayk’s descendants –
Kadmos, Aramaneak, Amasya, Gegham, Parogh, Tsolak, Harmay, etc. Their names became sui generis signs of topology. On
the theoretical aspects of the problem, see Stewart, 1966, 4 – 9; Frutiger, 1989, 40-42.
86 Sahak Bagratuni has been recognized as the alter ego of Khorenatsi. During all his narrative, the author is in (sometimes emotional)
dialogues with the prince who, as it becomes clear, knows Armenian history in epic vein. See Stepanyan, 1991, 172 – 176.
48
This period is known as the time of the hereditary domination of the Haykids,
which had outstanding rulers – Aram, Ara the Handsome, Tigran the Elder. According
to the author, this period continued to the days of Alexander of Macedon, when the last
Haykid ruler, Vahe, was killed. In ancient understandings, this form of integration was
defined as ethnie (ἔqnoς), with father’s full power over his subjects (despovthς).87 It is
governed by ancestral customs (moria maiorum) since society has no idea about
written laws. Respectively, the rule of the leader is formulated as the care (խնամք) of
his people.88 This is apparent in the assessment of the reign of Tigran the Elder: “He
was just and equal in every judgement, and he weighed all the circumstances of each
case impartially. He did not envy the noble nor did he despise the humble, but over all

alike he spread the mantle of his care” [Khor. I, 24,13 - 14].89
This statement is reminiscent of Plato’s renowned idea: “[...] in the use of
the word “father”, would the care of a father be implied and the filial
reverence and duty and obedience to him which the law commands” [Plato,
Rep., V, 469d].90
It must be added that in modern sociology, this form of integration is sometimes for-
mulated as traditional patrimony. This concerned not only centralized state-power but
also the local principalities and clans under their fathers (նահապետք, տանուտէրք) –
Bznunis, Ordunis, Khorkhorunis, Manavazeans, Siunis, etc.91 The outstanding kings –
Vagharshak Arsacid, Artashēs the Middle, Trdat the Great - assuming the reins of
Greater Armenia, legitimized their hereditary rights. Sometimes, the kings created new
principalities.
This well-balanced setting of social life, according to Khorenatsi, has an antiform
in barbarity deprived of stable institutions, legal and moral rules (ազգք խուժդուժ,
վայրենի). Regarding King Vagarshak’s campaign to the Caucasus Mountains, he
records: “He summoned there the barbarious foreign race that inhabited the northern
plain and the foothills of the great Caucasus Mountain and vales or long and deep
valleys that descend from the mountain on the south to the great plain. He ordered
them to cast off their banditary and assassinations and become subject to royal com-
87 Scholars define some basic features of ethnie: a. historic territory or homeland, b. common mythical ancestor(s) c. common language (internal
communication), d. common myths and historical memories, e. common beliefs. Cf. Armstrong, 1982, 3 – 13; Smith, 1986, 22 – 31.
88 In modern theory, ancestral customs are discussed as necessary knowledge for structuring of early social life: “Structure has no existence
independent of knowledge that agents have about what they do in their day-today activity”. Goody, 1984, 26. Cf. Collins, 1986, 267 – 279.
89 Most probably, this is a passage from the “Apology of Tigran” compiled according to the canons of Hellenistic rhetoric.
Abeghyan, 1968, 301 – 305.
90 Plato proceeded from the idea of good life under paternal rule (tw`/ patrivw/ nomw`/): “But wherever law is despot over the rulers,
and rulers are slaves to the laws, there I foresee salvation and all blessings which the gods bestow on cities” [Plato, Leg., IV,
715d]. Cf. Dusenbury, 2017, 42.
91 Their rule was based on the ancestral customs (բարք եւ սովորութիւնք) which regulated all areas of social life of the Armenians.
Adontz, 1908, 467.
49
mands and taxes, so that when he next saw them he might appoint leaders and
princes with proper institutions” [Khor., II, 6, 5].92
The second principle indicates the level where the identity of family and society is
already lost, but a reasonable balance between them can possibly be established (on
new grounds). Instead of ancestral customs, laws (աւրէնք) were introduced as the
regulators of social relations.93 With laws, according to Khorenatsi, societies are ca-
pable to reach the harmony of their basic elements. From this point of view, the
periods of the reign of the following eminent kings are most typical – Vagharshak
Arsacid, Artashēs the Middle, Trdat the Great. Vagharshak Arsacid: “He extended
his authority over his territories; as far as he was able, he fixed statutes of civil life for
this country” [Khor., II, 3,2]. In a more detailed manner: “He appointed judges at
court and jugdes in the cities and towns. He ordered that the townspeole be more
highly esteemed and honored than the peasants and that the peasants should respect
the townspeople like the princes. But the townspeople were not to vaunt themselves
too much over the peasants but to live on brotherly terms for the sake of harmony
and life without rancor – which are the causes of prosperity and peace and similar
[blessings]” [Khor., II, 8, 40 - 41].
One of the significant results of this transformation was the formation of a new
mode of social integrity that antique political theory formulated as political community
(koinwniva politikhv = կարգ կենցաղական, կարգ քաղաքական).94 In the mind of the
author, it gave rise to monarchy. The central figures of that were kings and their close
entourage (court), designed to establish peace and order through persuasive and com-
pulsory methods of rule (հաւանողական կամ բռնաւորական բանիւ) [Khor., II, 92, 3
9].95 The algorithm of their creative activity is formulated as the following: “[…] the
ordering and organization of houses, families, cities, villages, estates, and in general the
entire constitution of the kingdom (աւրէն թագաւորութեան), and whatever is of
relevance to the kingdom [...]” [Khor., II, 8, 2 - 3].96
From this point of view, the experience of Trdat the Great is notable as well: “He
chided and urged the greatest princes, and at the same time all the mass of the common
people, to become true Christians so that the deeds of all might bear witness to his
faith” [Khor., II, 92, 6]. To be more correct, it contained characteristics of a transition
to the next level of social integrity focused on the image of the Omnipotent God.
92 In Khorenatsi’s narrative, barbarity is an asocial condition of life. It is a sui generis departing point for demonstrating the vast
diversity of forms of social and political integrity. Stepanyan, 1991, 145.
93 In classical political theory, this is formulated as the transition from unwritten laws to written. Humphreys, 1988, 478 – 481.
94 Khorenatsi connects the transition from barbarity to political community with the activity of wise men and governors (իմաստունք
եւ վերակացուք) who are well acquainted with the art of statesmanship [Khor., II, 6, 6]. See in detail Stepanyan, 1991, 171 – 181.
95 This concept reaches back to the Stoics and Plato, tracing in power a balance of these two opposite poles – persuasion and compulsion
(h]qoς kai; kravtoς) [Plato, Rep., I, 350d – 352d; Leg., IV, 718a-c]. See in detail Bobonich, 1991, 365 – 376.
96 This reveals an obvious parallel with the rhetorical formulae of ideal royal authority which “[...] makes up the most relevant
cause of prosperity of rural places, cities and every household” [GP, I, 2, 20 - 25].
50
То a large extent, the harmony of social life depended on the balance between
the persuasive and compulsory principles. An imbalance was fraught with either ty-
ranny or ochlocracy. Forceful methods, according to Khorenatsi, dominated in the
tyrannical regimes of the kings Eruand the Last, Atravazd the Last, Arshak II and
Pap. The portrait of Pap Arsacid seems most typical. The author keeps silence
about his efforts at the reinforcement of the sovereignty of Greater Armenia and
focuses attention on his conflict with Archbishop Nersēs and the Roman Emperor.
According to him, Fortune retaliated against the king - he was captured by the
valiant general Terentius: “In iron bonds he went before Theodosius the Great, but
for his insolence was put to death with axe” [Khor., III, 39, 8].97

Despite more than four hundred years between them, Artavazd the Elder
and Pap have a common feature. In Khorenatsi’s History, their images have
been compiled in accordance with the aristocratic point of view. The
opposition aristocracy was against the absolutization of royal authority for
the entirety of Armenian history.98
The author demonstrates the ochlocratic anarchy with the example of the antihero
of the Persian fables, Buraspi Azhdahak: “He wished to show everyone a way of life
in common, and said that people should not possess anything privately but in
common. Everything of his was open, both word and deed; he had no hidden
thoughts, but all the secrets of his heart he brought out into the open by his tongue.
He allowed his friends to come and go freely at night as in the day. And this is his so-
called first maleficent kindness”[Khor., From the Fables of the Persians, 8]. It is well
known that similar ideas were generated in numerous Zoroastrian heresies and were
summed up in Mazdakism at the end of the 5th century. 99 Khorenatsi was most
probably familiar with their fundamental ideas.
The third principle was a marker of Christianity that came to replace paganism. The
conversion of Greater Armenia was considered а victory of the highest spirituality,
which, in its turn, gave rise to a new form of Armenian identity – God's covenant
(ուխտ Աստուծոյ). 100 More precisely, the Armenians (alongside with some other
97 This curious fragment is in contradiction with the accounts of Ammianus Marcellinus and Faustos Buzand, relating that King
Pap was treacherously murdered in a banquet arranged by the Roman general [Amm., XXX, 21; Buz., V, 32, 10 - 17].
98 “Crossing Mesopotamia, he (M. Antonius) slaughtered the innumerable army of the Armenians, and captured their king. On
returning to Egypt, he gave Artavazd, Tigran’s son, as a gift to Cleopatra with many values from the booty of war” [Khor., II,
23, 5]. According to antique authors, the Armenian king was in silver bonds [Plut., Ant., L, 4; Dio Cass., XLIX, 40 14].
99 Scholars are unanimous that the Sasanian king, Kavad, was dethroned and exiled in 496 due to his adherence to Mazdakite
beliefs. The opponents of Mazdakism accused it of breaking up the social order and mixing “people who should remain
separated” [Dēnkart, V, 31, 30]. Cf. Luttinger, 1921, 676 – 677; Christensen, 1943, 338 – 362; Rezakhani, 2015, 58 – 60. On
the connection of this passage of Khorenatsi with Mazdakite tradition, see Akinean, 1936, 15 – 20.
100 Zikiyan, 2005, 49 – 51.
51
nations) began to consider themselves as a people of covenant.101 On these grounds,
Khorenatsi attributes a feature of civilization to the Armenian Christian community, an
approach, that is in opposition to antique ideas. A steady intellectual tradition reached
back to Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics and Cicero that linked this feature with civil
society built on rational principles. The fact is that Khorenatsi, in line with the per-
ceptions of the new religion, ranked the achievements of Christian theology much
higher.
In this vein, the following must be highlighted; a dichotomy existed in
Christian axiology. The so-called inner knowledge was opposed to that of the
external. While the first represented the Christian value system, the second
denoted antique philosophy, arts and sciences. The latter were considered a
lower layer of knowledge though their results were widely used by Christian
apologists against pagan beliefs.102
For him, the term civilization is a marker of the high moral values of the given so-
ciety. In this connection, as it has been highlighted above, Archbishop Nersēs “[...]
by canonical regulation established mercy, extirpating the root of inhumanity”
[Khor., III, 20, 4]. As a result of that, “[...] one could see that our country was not
like uncivilized barbarians but like a well-mannered civilized nation” [Khor., III, 20,
13]. 103 In other words, instead of laws, the canonical regulations (կանոնական
սահմանադրութիւնք) of the Church took predominance as guarantees of social peace
and order in Armenia.104
As highlighted above, Christianity introduced important novelties concerning
not only all of society but also private family life. In addition to monogamy, it
established a new moral code. The family was thought of as a balance of different
role behaviors (biological, legal, moral) designed to secure its continuation under
God's direct guidance.105 In this vein, we can even speak about the equality of fa-
mily members before the Lord. Of course, this was an idealistic perception still far
from the everyday life of the Armenians.106
101 On different aspects of this process and similar shifts in various social and religious communities, see in detail Smith, 2003,
66 – 73; Zikiyan, 2005, 57 – 59.
102 On this theme, see in detail Shirinian, 1998, 21 – 38.
103 «Եւ էր այնուհետեւ տեսանել զաշխարհս մեր ոչ որպէս զբարբարոսս այլանդակեալս, այլ իբրեւ զքաղաքացիս
համեստացեալս». Obviously, Khorenatsi proceeds from the ancient concept of tracing the roots of civilization in urban
societies [Aristot., Pol., 1, 1252b, 27 – 30; Strabo, IV, 5, 1; Cicero, Rhet., 2,1; Tacit., Ger., 16]. Finley, 1977, 305 – 306; cf.
Malkin, 2014, 375 – 379; Wirth, 2017, 472 – 487.
104The perception of civilization as a cultural and moral phenomenon has old roots. Particularly, it made up the foundation of the important
dichotomy of the Greek mentality - culture and barbarity. See Gillet, 2004, 1 – 7; Heit, 2005, 725 – 739; Bonfante, 2011, 1 – 25.
105 See in detail Osiek, 1996, 6 – 22. The point of departure was the full equality of the two sexes in early Christian communities.
Later, however, the situation changed radically and the status of women was lowered. Loades, 1998, 83; Guy, 2004, 176. The
concept of “family role behavior” was a compromise between these opposite approaches actualized in the 4th century.
106 Vestiges of Zoroastrian practices were rather valid in (especially) low social classes, and Christianity had to overcome many
obstacles along the way. de Jong, 2015, 21.
52
In this regard, it must be emphasized that, despite the conversion to Christianity, the
Armenians continued to follow their traditional family rules, customs and values.
Khorenatsi traces one of fundamental problems of the 4th century Armenian history in
this. According to him, it managed to endanger the relationship of the royal authority
and commoners. This danger was obvious even in the days of Trdat the Great: “But I
wish to mention the hardheartedness, or rather vainglory, of our nation from the be-
ginning to now: enemies to the good, strangers to the truth by nature presumptuous and
perverse, they opposed the king's will concerning the Christian religion, following the
will of their wives and concubines” [Khor., II, 92, 7]. However, the new kings of
Greater Armenia – Khosrov Kotak, Tiran the Last, Arshak II, and Pap – came to
mitigate Christian orthodoxy and meet some key demands of common people: animal

sacrifices, serpent worship, funeral crowns and banquetts, identification of Zoroastrian
and Christian feasts of Lady Anahit and Vergine Mary, Vanatur and John the Baptist,
and (supposedly) Mihr and Christ.107 As a result of that: “[...] at that time, they took the
king as their example of evil, began to model themselves on that example, and to do
the same” [Buz., III, 13, 7].108 The Church and its leaders, on the contrary, insisted on
the purity of the faith. Moreover, its apologists composed a concept on the exclusive
role of the clergy in Armenian history.
Actually, this process began with the efforts of Archbishop Nersēs the
Great and achieved tangible results under Sahak Partev. But in reality, purity
continued to be a desirable ideal for the clergy and (especially) its elite.109 The
common people, according to Buzand: “From antiquity when they had taken
on the name of Christians, it was merely as [though it were] some human
religion, and they did not receive it with ardent faith, but as some human folly
[and] under duress” [Buz., III, 13,8].
Among the last Armenian Arsacids, the only exception was King Vṙamshapuh. He
ruled the land in accordance with, on one hand, Christian piety, and on the other hand,
the preceptions of the Sasanian court. In an essential sense, he built his policy on the
Christian idea of Dual Allegiance – to earthly Caesar and the heavenly Lord.110
107 Cf. Redgate, 1998, 122 – 126. Scholars point out another reason for the “church–crown” opposition. Like the Byzantine
emperors of that time, they were adherents of Arianism. Garsoïan, 1997, 85.
108 It demanded a long process of modifying and mitigating Christian universalism in the Armenian context. Redgate, 1998, 126
– 132. Scholars suggest that Zoroastrianism went through a similar process of mitigation in Armenia some centuries before. It
concerned some perceptible aspects of ideology and practice of that religion. See, Russell, 1982, 3 - 5; Russell,1987, 165 – 175;
Stepanyan, 2012, 161 – 164; de Jong, 2015, 123 – 125.
109 For this, the revision of the role of Gregory the Illuminatior in the Armenian Conversion to Christianity was crucial. He began
to gain primacy over Trdat the Great. This process was completed by the patriarchs Nersēs the Great and (especially) Sahak
Partev and took more than a century. See, Thomson, 19941, 26; Stepanyan, 2018, 43 – 46.
110 Thomson traces this understanding in the Great Revolt against Sasanian Iran under Sparapet Vardan Mamikonian in 450 –
451. He sees exactly this Christian perception of the Armenians in the settlement of the conflict. See, Thomson, 1982, 25; cf.
Zekiyan, 2005, 51; Stepanyan, 2018, 61 - 65.
53
In other words, God’s covenant implied a plan of social and moral innovation. It
was designed to set up an ideal model of family under the authority of an ideal pater-
familias - the heavenly Lord. And all members of the covenant were considered the
children of the Father. The nucleus of that were the hierarchs and intellectuals of
Church. This situation obtained more apparent features especially after the invention
of the national script and the emergence of the literal Christian culture.111 In other
words, universal Christianity was bestowed with local characteristics.
Khorenatsi proceeds precisely from this perception, depicting the images of the
blessed Mashtots and St. Sahak Partev in his Lament. They are depicted as fathers
responsible for the spiritual rebirth of their son-pupils: “For they gave me birth through
their teaching, and they raised me by sending me to grow up among others” [Khor., III,
68, 20]. This kind of relationship is confirmed in the author’s lament over the death of
the teachers: “Who will silence the insolence of those who rise up in opposition to the
wholesome teaching – those who are shaken and rent by every word, alternating many
teachers and many books […]. Who will silence and reprimand them, console us with
praise, and put a limit to talking and silence?” [Khor., III, 68, 20].
Contrary to clan (blood) relations based on the similarity and recurrence of genera-
tions, the spiritual family implied ongoing development and gave pupils a chance to
outrank their teachers: “Who will express the delight of a father, in part exceeded by
this son?” [Ibid.]. Moreover, the guarantor of the pupil’s greater success was the
teacher-father himself. In short, his “defeat” was planned in advance and brought him
great satisfaction. If this consideration is right, we can speak about the introduction of
the culture of excellence in Armenia discovered in Classical Greece.112
In this vein, it seems important to remember the following fact - in Eghishē's narra-
tive, God's covenant was the collective hero of the Great Revolt of the Armenians against
Sasanian domination. It was thought of as a new form of national identity. Its spiritual
leaders were martyrs, feeding forthcoming generations with Christian piety and fidelity,
veneration and devotion.113 At the same time, it must be highlighted that they carried out
their mission in a society where traditional blood relations still prevailed.
111 Thomson interpreted the Armenian concept սուրբ ուխտ as the Hebrew berit qōdesh – holy covenant (diaqhvkh ajgiva)
Thomson, 1982, 11; Zekiyan, 2005, 57 – 59; cf. PGL, 1961, 348.
112 The culture of excellence was linked ot a basic concept of the ancient Greeks. It is about agon (ajgwniva) – a contest or struggle
for victory that made up the axis of human behavior in various areas beginning form philosophy and theater ending with politics
and the Olympic Games. Wright, 1992, 28. This concept was adopted by Christian intellectuals and one of the key concepts of
their teaching was coined on the idea of agon – oJ ajgwnisthvς (նահատակ - martyr) – “a defender of true faith against
heretics”, “a Christian struggling in this life”. Cf. PGL, 1961, 26; cf. Redgate, 1998, 130 – 131.
113 From this point of view, the following passage from Eghishē is of undoubted interest: “Let not a father spare his son, nor a son
respect his father’s dignity. Let a wife strive her husband, and a servant turn against his master. May the divine Law rule over all
[…]” [Egh., III, 35 – 37]. In other words, family members had to become Christian martyrs. The parallel with the Maccabees is
quite obvious. See Thomson,1975, 34 – 36.
54
4. Household – State
To complete this part of our study, it seems necessary to pay attention to the prob-
lems of state typology. In this vein, it must be emphasized that without clear defi-
nitions, Khorenatsi, nevertheless, discusses the political aspect of the social integration
of Armenia from the formative period to his days. On the whole, he follows the antique
tradition reaching back to the Stoics, Plato, and (especially) Aristotle. Most probably,
Philo of Alexandria, whose numerous works were well-known in the 5th century
Armenia, played the role of а intermediator in this case as well.
According to Aristotle, a household is comprised of the key elements of govern-
ment – monarchy (basilikw~ς), republic (politikw~ς) and despotism (despotikw~ς)

[Aristot., Pol., 1259b, 15]. The supremacy of one or another element determines the
character of the given political regime. Philo shares this approach in interpreting and
reasoning of biblical social relations in the terms of antique political philosophy. 114
Khorenatsi follows this experience. His narrative demonstrates the meta-
morphoses of the Armenian state over the long duration of historical time. As it has
been stated above, the point of departure of his considerations is the household based
on the opposite elements of integrity – power and freedom. Their different
combinations give rise to different paradigms of state integration. In this regard, it
must be kept in mind that Khorenatsi proceeds from the typological parallels of the
household and state.115
The first paradigm depicted the transition from patriarchal leadership to patri-
archal monarchy (dunasteiva) which happened in Armenia under Paroyr, son
Skayordi [Khor., I, 21, 4].116 One of the definitions of this form of monarchs is very
precise. Khorenatsi names them պսակաւորք – literary, wreath bearers [Khor., I, 22,
6]. According to the author, patriarchal monarchy is the ideal form of state
government. This statement even excited his emotional desire to have lived in those
days: “How dear it would have been for me if the Savior had come at that time and
redeemed me and if my entrance into the world had occurred in their time [...]”
[Khor., I, 22, 4].
The second paradigm defined the development of the household into a political
form of integration. This happened under Vagharshak Arsacid. A detailed con-
sideration of the extensive passage of Khorenatsi on this king gives us reason to state
114 This aspect demonstrates the close relationship between Philo’s philosophy and Greek-Hellenistic intellectual traditions. See
Alesse, 2008, 1 – 6; Sterling, 20142, 153 – 154.
115 On this aspect of Khorenatsi's social theory, see Stepanyan, 1993, 22 – 23.
116 Aristotle calls this form of monarchy barbaric. Sometimes, he recognizes its existence in Greece as well and defines these kings
with a special term, regulators (aijsumnhvtoi). They rule without distinct constitutions [Arist., Pol., V, 1315b, 40 - 41]. Cf. Riesbeck,
2016, 121.
55
that he attempted to implement a mixed state system (politeiva mikthv).117 It balan-
ced two (at first sight opposite) forms of government - royal authority on the one
hand, and aristocratic hierarchic republic on the other. This balance, with numerous
cases of infringement, lasted for centuries. Regarding Arshak II, Khorenatsi formu-
lates this situation as the possibility of consent and alliance between the king and no-
bility. After bloody conflicts, through the efforts of Nersēs the Great “[…] was
established a covenant that thenceforth the king would rule justly (ուղղութեամբ) and
they would serve sincerely (միամտութեամբ)” [Khor., III, 29, 11].
Over the centuries, the concord (միաբանութիւն հայոց) was institutionalized by
the Popular Assembly and State Council. It must be added that the two important
documents of Early Medieval Armenia - The Rank List (Գահնամակ) and Military
List (Զաւրանամակ) - had been compiled to legitimize the situation.118 However, the
break of the balance was fraught with the danger of the absolutization of one of the
poles. It would pave the way to either tyranny or anarchy. Such an outcome,
according to Khorenatsi, was especially possible in the days of Arshak II and Pap,
when the internal situation of Greater Armenia was extremely polarized.
The third paradigm represented an ideal community under God’s guidance. It was
thought of as an earthly image of the heavenly republic, a concept that had been
adopted by Christian intellectuals from Stoic theory.119 God communicated with the
community through church hierarchs who: “[…] turned the entire population of the
land of Armenia into the likeness of a universal order of solitary-communities”
[Buz., IV, 4, 35]. This threefold unity – God, clergy, community - existed in parallel
with the state system. 120 Moreover, as it is obvious from the history of the 4th
century, it had the ambition to gain supremacy over absolute royal authority. In some
cases, this objective united the Church with the opposition nobility, with the intention
of reshaping the situation into an “ideal republic” where the king would have been
either unus inter pares or absent on the whole. The clash of these ideologies of
power made the decline of Greater Armenia inevitable. The process was aggravated
due to the continuous clashes of the two neighboring super states – Rome and Sasan-
117 This theory was formulated by Aristotle and was further developed by Polybius on the basis of Roman history. See in detail
Walbank, 1990, 143 – 151; Riesbeck, 2016, 108 – 114.
118 However, by the 4th century, the importance of the Popular Assembly diminished. It was replaced by the aristocratic State Council.
Kings referred to the population of the land and held Assemblies only in exceptional cases. See in detail Manandyan, 1934, 79 - 82;
Stepanyan, 20141, 33 – 38. For a detailed analysis of these two important documents, see Adontz, 1908, 249 – 272.
119 The problem of the parallels between cosmic and earthly commonwealths had strong roots in Hellenistic and early Christian
mentality. See Stob, 1934/1935, 217 – 224; Lesilva, 1995, 553 – 559; Thon, 2015, 54 – 56.
120 Scholars discuss this process on the background of the new model of royal power introduced in Armenia by Trdat the Great. It
was based on Roman ideology (and experience) and opposed to the traditional Parthian model of weak royal authority. For this
purpose, the king hoped to use Church ideology and hierarchy. See Scott, 2016, 317 - 319. However, in Armenia, the Church
increased its power in close connection with the nakharar system. Despite the influence of the Greco-Roman world, it had not
spread from “city to city” but from “principality to principality”. Thomson, 19942, 34.
56
ian Persia. As a result, in 387, Arsacid Armenia was partitioned between the rivals
and finally left the stage of history in 428.
The following comparison, we believe, can shed further light on the Armenian
path of development. The Roman Empire faced similar problems. However, absolute
royal authority proved its ability to settle essential contradictions and build a new so-
cial and political order. According to the new ideology, the person of the emperor
was declared God’s earthly image in order to transmit His will to the Church and all
of society.121 This laid down the foundations of the Byzantine Empire.122
Conclusion

The household/family occupies a central position in the sociology of Moses Kho-
renatsi. It provides a key for reasoning and understanding numerous events from the
past and present of Armenian history. The author interprets problems with a multi-
dimensional perspective and combines the data of the Armenian, Zoroastrian, antique
and biblical intellectual traditions. This approach demonstrates the metamorphoses of
the Armenian identity over the long duration of history – traditional ethnie, political
nation, God’s covenant. These paradigms functioned not only in diachronic but also
in a synchronic layer of historical time.
Despite the global aspect, the household/family would have to respond to the con-
crete challenges of history. The effectiveness of these responses depended mostly on
the cooperation of its members – father, mother, children and servants. Their
relationship was regulated by a law code parallel to the Iranian Matakdan i-Hazar
Datastan. It concerned the different forms of marriage and family – polygamic and
monogamic, full-right and conditional (half-right), patrilocal and matrilocal. Besides
divergences, they looked at the same objective – to ensure stability in the lives of their
members, as well as all of society.
The typological interdependence of the household/family and society is the key
problem of the present investigation. It proceeds from the antique philosophical tradi-
tion in combination with the Armenian traditional perception. It made up the basic
concept that depicted Armenia as an expanded household – տուն հայոց.
In Khorenatsi’s History, a concept that reaches back to Aristotle’s theory is
traceable. It sees the principal elements of state government in every household –
monarchy, republic and despotism. The prevalence of one or the other depended on
121 Scholars find that this image of the emperor was formed after the Hellenistic paradigm of royal authority based on the concepts of
epiphany (ejpifaniva) and sotery (swteriva). See in detail Dvornik, 1966, 236 – 237; cf. Goodenough, 1928, 67 – 73.
122 On this aspect of the formative period of the Byzantine Empire, see Scott, 2016, 306 – 315. For the diversity of the Byzantine
and Armenian historical paths, see Stepanyan, 20142, 157 – 166.
57
the structure and essence of family relations. In the first instance, it was about the
royal household, which personified a high pattern of structure and morality for the
whole country. Every just king was considered responsible for peace and order not
only in his household but also in the whole kingdom. Respectively, discord and
quarrel within the royal family could initiate chaos in the country. In this case,
tyranny or anarchy would gain the upper hand.
Historically, the last form of family and social partnership was God’s covenant. It
was aimed at the absolute correspondence of household and society in order to secure
welfare and security under God’s direct leadership. From the political point of view,
this form was considered a mixed government with elements of monarchy, aristocracy
and democracy. On the whole, the different forms of household/family integration and
social and national solidarity of the Armenians operated synchronically as well. They
interacted, instilling new features of validity in the perspective of the past and present.
Ալբերտ Ա. Ստեփանյան - գիտական հետաքրքրությունների շրջանակն ընդ-

գրկում է անտիկ շրջանի և վաղ միջնադարի հայոց պատմության հիմնահարցերը։
Հակիրճանք
ՏՈՒՆ/ԸՆՏԱՆԻՔԸ ՄՈՎՍԵՍ ԽՈՐԵՆԱՑՈՒ

ԸՆԿԵՐԱՅԻՆ ՏԵՍՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՄԵՋ
Ալբերտ Ա. Ստեփանյան
պ. գ. դ.
Հանգուցաբառեր - տուն/ընտանիք, բազմամուսնություն,

մենամուսնություն, լիարժեք և պայմանական ամուսնաձևեր,
ընտանիք-հանրույթ-պետություն համակերպություն, Մովսես
Խորենացի, Արիստոտել, Փիլոն Աղեքսանդրացի, Մատակ-
դան ի-հազար դատաստան:
Հոդվածը խնդիր ունի հետազոտելու ընկերային կառույցի հիմնարար բաղադրի-

չի՝ տուն/ընտանիքի կերպափոխությունները հընթացս հայոց պատմության երկար
տևողության: Տևողություն, որը կազմում է Մովսես Խորենացու «Հայոց պատմութ-
յան» իմաստային հենքը: Այս հոլովույթում ընտանիքը դիտարկվում է հայոց ազգա-
յին ինքնության երեք հարացույցների համածիրում՝ տոհմիկ կառույց, քաղաքական
ազգ և ուխտ Աստծոյ: Հայոց սովորութային իրավունքի, հելլենիստական իմաստա-
սիրության, զրադաշտական և աստվածաշնչյան իրավական ըմբռնումների լույսի
ներքո բացահայտվում է ընտանիքի ներքին կառույցի, ունեցվածքային և բարոյա-
58
կան հարաբերությունների համալիրը: Բազմամուսնություն և մենամուսնություն,
լիարժեք և պայմանական ամուսնություններ՝ ահա այն չափույթները, որոնցով լու-
սաբանվում է հիմնախնդիրը: Հարդյունս բացահայտվում է ներընտանեկան հարա-
բերությունների այն բազմազանությունը, որը պարառում է ընկերային համակեցութ-
յան այս հիմնարար միավորի սովորութային, ծիսական, բարոյական և իրավական
հիմքերը: Դրանց հարմոնիկ համադրությունը միտված է ապահովելու նրա կայու-
նությունն ու շարունակականությունը հընթացս հարափոփոխ ժամանակի:
Առանձնակի սևեռումի առարկա է ընտանիք-հանրույթ-պետություն հարաբե-
րությունների ուսումնասիրությունը: Դա հնարավորություն է ընձեռում նորովի լուսա-
բանելու հայոց պատմության բազում դրվագներ, որոնք ցայժմ դիտարկվել են սոսկ

առօրեական-նկարագրական կերպավորմամբ: Ասվածի լույսով ուրվագծվում է
պատմության մի կայուն ալգորիթմ, որը ներկայացնում է Տուն Հայոցի կերպափո-
խությունները՝ սկսյալ տան և հայրենիքի նույնությունից (Հայկ և հայկյաններ) մինչև
տան և Աստծո կամքի համադրելիության հեռանկարը (քրիստոնեական ըմբռնում):
Ուրույն դիտանկյուն է ներկայացնում արքայական ընտանիքը: Հիշենք, մինչ
4-րդ դարի արյունահեղ ընդհարումները վերջինս ընկալվում էր իբրև ընտանիքի
ընդհանրական հարացույց, որի կարգաբերվածությամբ և բարոյական պատկե-
րով շատ առումներով պայմանավորված էին Մեծ Հայքի անդորրը և բարեկեցու-
թյունը: Այս դրույթը հոդվածում ներկայացված է ականավոր գահակիրների օրի-
նակով՝ Արտաշես Ա, Տրդատ Մեծ: Դիտարկված է նաև հակավիճակը, երբ ար-
քայական ընտանիքում տիրող քաոսը հանգեցնում է Մեծ Հայքի թուլացմանն ու
անկմանը: Այդ վիճակը դիտարկված է Արշակ Բ-ի ընտանիքի օրինակով:
Резюме
ДОМ/СЕМЬЯ В СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ ТЕОРИИ

МОВСЕСА ХОРЕНАЦИ
Альберт А. Степанян
доктор ист. наук
Ключевые слова - дом/семья, полигамия, моногамия,

полноценная и условная формы брака, изоморфизм семья-
социум-государство, Мовсес Хоренаци, Аристотель, Фи-
лон Александрийский, Матакдан и-Хазар Датастан.
Статья посвящена исследованию метаморфоз важного компонента соци-

ума- дома/семьи на протяжении продолжительного хода истории, на которой
59
построена осевая структура «Истории Армении» Мовсеса Хоренаци. Древ-
няя и раннесредневековая армянская семья рассматривается на фоне трех
парадигм национальной идентичности – племенной общины, политической
нации и божьего завета. На основе армянского обычного права, элли-
нистической политической теории, правовых норм зороастризма и Библии
раскрываются разные аспекты структуры, имущественных отношений, мора-
ли семьи. Полигамия и моногамия, полноценная и условная формы брака -
вот измерения, по которым освещается проблема исследования.
Предметом особого внимания является изоморфизм семья-социум-госу-
дарство. Это дает возможность по новому осмыслить многие важные фраг-
менты армянской истории, которые по сей день интерпретируются лишь в
повседневно-описательном плане. Сказанное, в первую очередь, касается
царской семьи, благосостояние и моральный образ которой имели пара-
дигмальное значение для всей Великой Армении.
Царская семья являлся средоточием всех названных ценностных ориенти-
ров. Вспомним, до кровавых внутриполитических сталкновений 4-го века, ее
благосостояние и моральный образ имели парадигмальное значение для всей
Великой Армении. Эта идея в статье раскрыта на примере выдающихся армян-
ских венценосцов Арташеса I и Трдата Великого. Рассмотрена и противополож-
ная ситуация, когда хаос в царской семье приводит к ослаблению и упадку стра-
ны. Эта обстановка рассмотрена на примере семьи Аршака II.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
1. Ammianus Marcellinus, 1939 – 1950, History, v. 1 – 3, with an English translation by J. C.

Rolfe (Albany, N.Y., State University of New York Press).
2. Anonym, 1999, Primary History of Armenia, in The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos,
pt.1, translation and notes by R. W. Thomson, Historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnson
(Liverpool, UP).
3. Appian, 1955 – 1958, Historia Romana, v. 1 – 2, with an English translation by H. White
(Cambridge, Ma, Harvard UP).
4. Aristotle, 1991, The Complete Works, ed. by J Barnes (Princeton, UP).
5. Cassius Dio Cocceianus, 1961, Historia Romana, v. 3 – 4, with an English translation by H.
B. Foster (Cambridge, Ma, London, Harvard UP).
6. Elishē (Eghishē), 1982, History of Vardan and the Armenian War, translation and
commentary by R. W. Thomson (Cambridge, Ma, London, Harvard UP). Eghishē, 2003,
Vasn Vardanay yev Hayots paterazmin, Matenagitk Hayots, h.1 (Antilias-Libanan, Metsi
Tann Kilikioy Katoghikosutiun), 521 – 764 (in Armenian).
7. Ghazaray Parpetsvoy Patmutiun hajots, 2003, Matenagitk Hayots, h.2 (Antilias-Libanan,
Metsi Tann Kilikioy Katoghikosutiun), 2201 – 2375 (In Armenian).
60
8. GP - Girk pitoyits, 1993, ashkhatasirutyamb G.Muradyani (Erevan GA hrat.) (In
Armenian).
9. Kanonagirk' hayoc, 1964, h. I, ashkhatasirutyamb V. Hakobyani (Erevan, HSSR GA hrat.)
(In Armenian).
10. Movses Khorenatsi, 1978, History of the Armenians, translation and commentary on the
literary sources by R. W. Thomson (Cambridge, Ma, London, Harvard UP). Movses
Khorenatsi, 2003, Patmutiun Hayots, Matenagirk Hayots, h.2 (Antelias-Lebanon, Metsi
Tann Kilikioy Katoghikosutiun), 1743 – 2121 (In Armenian).
11. Patmutiun Sebeosi,1979, ashkhatasirutyamb G. V. Abgaryani (Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.) (In
Armenian).
12. Philo of Alexandria, 1993, The Works, Complete and Unbridged, New Version, translated
by C. D. Young, foreword by D. M. Scholee (New York Hendrickson Publ.).
13. Plato,1997, The Complete Works, ed. by J. M. Cooper (Indianapolis, Cambridge, Hakert

Publ.).
14. Plutarchus, 1914 – 1916, Parallel Lives, v. 2 - 3, with an English translation by B. Perrin
(Cambridge, Ma, London, Hervard UP).
15. Tacitus C., 1964, Dialogues, Agricola, Germania (London, William Heinemann, New York,
The Macmillan Co).
16. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, 1990, edited and translated by M. Boyce
(Chicago, UP).
17. The Alexander Romance by Ps.-Callisthenes, 2017, A Historical Commentary, by K. Na-
wotka (Leiden, Boston, Brill).
18. The Book of a Thousand Judgements (Sasanian Law-Book), 1997, Introduction,
inscription, of the Pahlavi text, notes, glossary and index by A. Perikhanyan, translated from
Russian by N. Garsoïan (Costa Mesa, California and New York, Mazda Publ.).
19. The Epic Histories Attributed to P'awstos Buzand, Buzandaran Patmutiwnk, translation
and commentary by N. G. Garsoïan (Cambridge, Ma, Harvard UP). Paustos Buzand, 2003,
Patmutiun Hayots, Matenagitk Hayots, h.1 (Antilias-Libanan, Metsi Tann Kilikioy Katoghi-
kosutiun), 277 – 428 (in Armenian).
20. The Geography of Strabo, 2014, Translated by D. W. Roller (Cambridge, UP) // The
History of Lazar Parpetc'i, 1991, translation and Commentary by R. W. Thomson (Atlanta
Scholars Press).
21. The Lawcode [Datastanagirk] of Mkhitar Goš, 2000, translated with commentary and
indices by R. W. Thomson (Amsterdam, Atlanta, Ga, Rodopi). Mkhitar Gosh, 1975, Girq
Datastani, ashkhatasirutyamb Kh. Torosyani (Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.) (in Armenian).
Monographs and articles
22. Abeghyan M., 1968, Hayots hin grakanutyan patmutyun, h.1 (Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.)
(In Armenian).
23. Acharyan H., 1977, Hayeren armatakan baṙaran, h.3 (Erevan. YPH h8at.) (In Armenian).
24. Adkins A. W. H., 1984, The Connection between Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, Political
Theory, 12/1, 29 – 49.
25. Adontz N., 1908, Armenia v epoxy Justiniana. Politicheskoe sostojanie na osnove
naxararskogo stroja (SPb, Tipografija Akademii Nauk) (In Russian). [Cf. Adontz, 1970,
Armenia in the Period of Justinian. The Political Conditions Based on the Naxarar
61
System. Translation with partial revisions, a bibliographic note and appendix by N. G.
Garsoïan (Lisbon, G. Gulbekian Foundation)].
26. Ager Sh. L., 2005, Familiarity Breeds: Incest and Polemic Dynasty, Journal of Hellenic
Studies, 125, 1 – 34.
27. Akinean N., 1936, Biuraspi Azhdahak yev hamaynavarn Mazdak hay Avandavepi mej əst
Movses Khorenacvoy, Handes amsorya, 50/1 -3, 1 – 21 (In Armenian).
28. Alesse F., 2008, Introduction, in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed.
by F. Alesse (Leiden, Boston), 1 – 12.
29. Annas J., 1996, Aristotle on Human Nature and Political Virtue, The Review of
Metaphysics, 49/4, 731 – 454.
30. Arevshatyan S., 1973, Hnaguyn haykakan targmanutjunnerə ev nrants patmakan nshanaku-
tjunə, HPJ/PBH, 1, 23 – 37 (In Armenian).
31. Arevshatyan S., Mirumyan K., 2014, Hay p’ilisopayut’yun, mas 1. Hin shrjan yev vagh
mijnadar (Echmiadzin, Mayr at’or surb Echmiadzin tp.) (In Armenian).
32. Armstrong J., 1982, Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina
Press).
33. Baird F. E. (ed.), 2011, From Plato to Derrida (London, New York, Routledge).
34. Barkhudaryan S. G., 1966, Hay knoj iravakan vichakə mijin darerum, PBH, 1, 25 – 40.
Gnoch (In Armenian).
35. Barton S. C., 1997, The Relativisation of Family Ties in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman
Traditions, in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor,
ed. by H. Moxnes (London, Routledge), 81 – 102.
36. Barton S. C.,1994, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (Cambridge UP).
37. Bauman W., 2009, Theology, Creation, and Environmental Ethics. From Creation Ex Nihilo
to Terra Nulius (New York, Routledge).
38. Bechtle G., 1998, La problématique de l’âme et du cosmos chez Philon et les médio-plato-
niciens, in Philon d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie, Monothéismes et Philosophie,
ed. C. Lévy (Turnhout, Brepolis Publ.), 377 – 392.
39. Bobonich Ch., 1991, Persuasion, Compulsion and Freedom in Plato’s Laws, The Classical
Quarterly, 41/2, 365 – 388.
40. Bonfante L., 2011, Introduction: Classical and Barbarian, in The Barbarians of the Ancient
World, ed. By L. Bonfante (Cambridge, UP), 1 – 36.
41. Bos A. P., 1998, Philo of Alexandria: a Platonist in the Image and Likeness of Aristotle, The
Studia Philonica Annual, 10, 66 – 86.
42. Brosius M., 1996, Women in Ancient Persia (Oxford, UP).
43. Cadenhead R., 2018, The Body and Desire. Gregory of Nyssa’s Ascetical Theology
(Oakland, Univ. of California Press).
44. Carlson B. H., 1984, The Čakar Marriage Contract and Čakar Children’s Status in the
Mātiyān ī Hazār Datastān and Rivāyat ī Ēmēt Ašavahīštan, W. Skalmowski and A. von
Tongerloo (eds.), Middle Iranian Studies (Leuven, Brill), 103 – 114.
45. Christensen A., 1944, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, 2me ed. (Copenhague, Ejmar
Munksgaard).
46. Collins A., 1986, Weberian Social Theory (New York, Cambridge UP).
47. Collins R., 1998, The Sociology of Philosophies. A Global Theory of Intellectual Change
(Cambridge Ma, London, Harvard UP).
48. Crips R., 1999, Ethics, in Routledge History of Philosophy (RHP), v. 2, From Aristotle to
Augustine, ed. by D. Furley (London, New York, Routledge), 109 – 124.
62
49. de Callatay F. C., Lorber C. C., 2011, The Pattern of Royal Epithets on Coinage, in More
Than Man, Less Than Gods. Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, ed. by P. P. Iossif,
A. S. Stankowski, C. C. Lorber (Leuven, Paris, Walpole, Peters), 417 – 456.
50. De Jong A., 2015, Armenian and Georgian Zoroastrianism, in The Wiley Blackwell
Companion to Zoroastrianism, ed. by M. Strausberg and Y.S-D. Vevaina (Malden, Ma,
Oxford, Wiley Blackwell), 119 – 129.
51. Deslauriers M., 2002, How to Distinguish Aristotle’s Virtues, Phronesis, 47/2, 101 – 126.
52. Dillon J. M., 1997, The Pleasure and the Perils of Soul-Gardening, The Studia Philonica
Annual, 9, 190 – 197.
53. Dillon J. M., 2008, Philo and Hellenistic Platonism, in Philo of Alexandria and Post-
Aristotelian Philosophy (PPAP), ed. By F. Alesse (Leiden and Boston, Brill), 226 – 232.
54. Dusenbury D. L., 2017, Platonic Legislations: An Essay on Legal Critique in Ancient
Greece (Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit).

55. Dvornik F., 1966, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Back-
grounds, v.1 (Washington, Co, The Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Trustees
for Harvard University).
56. Eremyan, S. T., 1948, Osnovnie cherti obshchestvennogo stroja Armenii v Ellenisticheskuju
epokhu, Izvestija AN Arm SSR (Obshchestvennye nauku), 11, 33 – 73 (In Russian).
57. Eremyan, S. T., 1950, O Rabstve i rabovladenii v drevney Armenii, Vestnik drevney istorii,
1950, 1, 12 – 26 (In Russian).
58. Ferrari G. F. R., 2007, The Three-Part Soul, in The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s
Republic, ed. by G. F. R. Ferrari (Cambridge UP), 165 – 201.
59. Finley M. I., 1977, The Ancient City: From Fustel de Coulanges to Max Weber and Beyond,
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 19/3, 305 – 327.
60. Frutiger A., 1989, Signs and Symbols. Their Design and Typology, Translated by A. Bluhm
(New York, Van Nostrand).
61. Garsoïan N G., 1989, Introduction, in The Epic Histories. Garsoïan (Cambridge Ma,
Harvard UP), 1 – 58.
62. Garsoïan N. G., 1996, The Two Voices of Armenian Medieval Historiography: The Iranian
Index, Studia Iranica, 25, 7 – 43.
63. Garsoïan N. G., 1997, Aršakuni Dynasty (A. D. 12 – [180?] - 428), in APAMT, 63 – 94.
64. Geljon A. C., Runia D., 2013, Philo of Alexandria, On Cultivation. Introduction,
Translation, and Commentary (Leiden, Boston, Brill).
65. Ghltchean A., 1904, Amusnutyun, amusnalutsutyun yev qaghaqakan psak (Alexandrapol,
tparan H. Ghasabyatsi) (In Armenian).
66. Ghltchean A., 1913, Hajoc hin iravunkə. əntanekan iravunk (Alexandrapol, tp. H. G.
Sanoyani) (In Armenian).
67. Gillet A., 2004, Introduction. The Barbarian: The Alien in Antiquity. Ancient History
(Resourses for Teachers), 24/1, 1 – 9.
68. Goodenough E. R., 1928, The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship, Yale Classical
Studies, 2, 55 – 102.
69. Goody A., 1984, The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration
(Berkeley, University of California Press).
70. Guy L. D., 2004, Introducing Christianity: A topical survey of its life, beliefs and practices
(Downers Grove, Il, Universality Press).
71. Hall R., 2004, Plato, in Political Thinkers, v. 9, ed by G. Parry (London, Ney York,
Routledge).
63
72. Hamilton G. G., 1984, Patriarchalism in Imperial China and Western Europe: A Revision of
Weber's Sociology of Domination, Theory and Sociology, 13/3, 393 – 425.
73. Hamilton G. G., 1990, Patriarchy, Patrimonialism and Filial Piety: A Comparison of China
and Western Europe, British Journal of Sociology, 41/1, 77 – 104.
74. Harutyanyan S., 1987, Hay hin vipashkharhə (Yerevan, Arevik) (In Armenian).
75. Heit H., 2005, Western Identity. Barbarians and the Inheritance of Greek Universalism, The
European Legacy, 10/7, 725 - 739.
76. Hittinger J., 2013, Plato and Aristotle on the Family and the Polis, The Saint Anselm
Journal, 8/2, 1 – 22.
77. Hovhannisyan S. H., 1973, θntaniqi dzeverə, kazmə yev funktsianerə vagh feodalakan
Hajastanum, PBH, 1, 195 – 208 (In Armenian).
78. Humphreys S. C., 1988, The Discourse of Law in Archaic and Classical Greece, Law and
History Review, 6/2, 465 – 493.
79. Karapetyan E., 1958, Armyanskaya semeynaya obshchina (Yerevan, Izd. AN Arm. SSR)
(In Russian).
80. Knoll M., 2017, Aristotle’s Arguments for his Political Anthropology and Natural Existence
of the Polis, in Aristote, L’animal polotique, eds. A. Jaulin, R. Güreman (Paris, Éditions de la
Sorbonne), 31 – 57.
81. Lesilva D. A., 1995, Paul and Stoa: A Comparison, JETS, 38/4, 549 – 564.
82. Loades A., 1998, Feminist Interpretation, in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpre-
tation, ed. by J. Barton (Cambridge, UP), 81 – 94.
83. Luttinger P., 1921, Mazdak, The Open Court, 11, 664 – 685.
84. Macuch M., 2006, The Function of Temporary Marriage in the Context of Sasanian Family
Law, Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societies Iranica Europae held in Ravenna 6 –
11 Oct. 2003, v.1 Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. by A. Panaino and A. Piras
(Milano, Mimesis), 585 – 597.
85. Macuch M., 2015, Law in Pre-modern Zoroastrianism, in The Wiley Blackwell Companion,
eds. M. Strausberg, Y. S.-D. Vivaina (Oxford, W. Blackwell), 289 – 298.
86. Macuch M., 2017, Descendent and Inheritance in Zoroastrian and Shi’ite Law: A
Preliminary Study, Der Islam, 94/2, 322 - 335.
87. Malkin A., 2014, Aristotle’s Idea of Civilized Man and Pathway to Civilization,
Biocosmology – Neo-Aristotelism, v.4/4, 370 – 379.
88. Manandyan H., 1934, Feodalizmy hin Hajastanum (Arshakunineri ev marzpanwutyan
shrjan) (Yerevan, Melqonyan fond) (In Armenian).
89. Nagle D. B., 2006, The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis (Cambridge, UP).
90. Nickolas B., 1992, Patria Potestas, in OCD, 789.
91. Ormanean M., 2001, Azgapatum, h.1 (Mayr Ator S. Echmiadzin) (In Armenian).
92. Osiek C., 1996, The Family in Early Christianity: “Family Values” Revised, The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 58/1, 1 – 24.
93. Perikhanian A., 1980, The Book of a Thousand Judgements (A Sasanian Law-Book), Intro-
duction, Transcription of the Pahlavi Text. Notes Glossary and Indexes by A. Perikhanian
(Translated from Russian by N. Garsoïan) (Costa Mensa Ca, New York, Mazda Publ.).
94. Perikhanian A., 1983, Iranian Society and Law, in CHI, v.3/2, 627 – 680.
95. PGL, 1961, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. by G. W. H. Lampe (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
96. Phyllis B., 1998, Images of Women in the Old Testament, in Religion and Sexism: Images
of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. by R. R. Reuther (New York, Wipf and
Stock Publ.), 41 – 88.
64
97. Pizarro J. M., 2003, Ethnic and National History CA 500 – 1000, in Historiography in
Middle Ages, ed. By D.M. Deliyannis (Leiden, Boston, Brill), 43 – 87.
98. Prudence Sister A., 1985,The Concept of Woman. The Aristotelian Revolution 750 B.C. –
A.D. 1250. (Cambridge, Michigan, CUP).
99. Reydams-Schilds G., 2008, Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonic Psycho-Physiology:
The Socratic Higher Ground, in PPAP, 169 – 196.
100. Rezakhani Kh., 2015, Mazdakism, Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism: In Search of
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Late Antique Iran, Iranian Studies, 48/1, 55 – 70.
101. Richardson Lear, 2009, Happiness and the Structure of Ends, in A Companion to
Aristotle, ed. by G. Anagnostopoulos (Malden, Oxford, Blackwell), 387 – 403.
102. Riesbeck D. J., 2016, The Unity of Aristotle’s Theory of Constitutions, Apeiron, 49/1, 93
– 125.
103. Russel J. R., 1982, Zoroastrian Problems in Armenia, in Classical Armenian Culture, ed.

by Th. Samuelian (Philadelphia, Scholars Press), 1 – 7.
104. Russel J. R., 1987, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge Ma, Harvard UP).
105. Samuelyan Kh.,1939, Hin haj iravunqi patmutyun, h. 1(Yerevan, Hajpethrat) (In
Armenian).
106. Sargsyan G., 1962, Dastakertnerə yev agaraknerə V dari haykakan aghbyurnerum, PBH,
1962, 6, 39 – 56 (in Armenian).
107. Sargsyan G., 1967, O dvux znacheniyax termina “dastakert” v rannix armyanskix
istochnikax, Ellenisticheskij Blizhnij Wostok, Vizantiya i Iran (Moskva, Izd. Vostochnaya
Literatura), 97 – 101 (In Russian).
108. Sargsyan G., 2006, Movses Khorenatsu “Hayots Patmutyunə” yev sepagrakan
aghbyurnerə (Hayki yev Haykyanneri aṙaspeli patmakanutyan yev zargatsman puleri
khndirə), in Sargsyan G., Patmakan hetazotutyunner (Yerevan, HH GAA hrat.), 46 – 72.
109. Saunders T. J., 1999, The Politics, in RHP, 125 – 146 (In Armenian).
110. Scott M., 2016, Ancient Worlds. An Epic History of of East and West (London, Windmill
Books).
111. Selminen J., 2017, Ascetism and Early Christian Lifestyle, Academic Dissertation
(Helsinki, University, Faculty of Theology).
112. Shahbazi A. Sh., 2003, Harem in Ancient Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica (New York, Mazda
Publ.), 11/6, 671 – 672.
113. Shaki M., 1971, The Sasanian Matrimonial Relations, Archív Orientální, 39, 322 – 345.
114. Shaki M., 1975, The Concept of Obligated Successorship in the Mādyān ī Hazār Datastān,
Acta Iranica 5, In Monumentum H. S. Nyberg (Leiden, Brill), 48 – 53.
115. Shirinian E., 1998, Artaqin yev nurb greanq, Ashtanak, 2, 15 – 45.
116. Smith A. N. D., 1986, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell Publ.).
117. Smith A. N. D., 2003, Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity (Oxford, UP).
118. Stalkever S. G.,1990, Finding the Mean. Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political
Philosophy (Princeton, UP).
119. Stepanyan A., 1991, Razvitie istoricheskoy mysli v drewney Armenii. Mif, ratsionalism,
istoriopisanie (Yerevan, izd. AN Arm. SSR) (In Russian).
120. Stepanyan A., 1993, “Əntaniq – petutyn” hamakerputyunə 5-rd dari hay hasarakakan ntqi
nej. Movses Khorenatsi, Iran name, 6, 21 – 23 (In Armenian).
121. Stepanyan A., 2012, Patmutjan kerpapokhutjunnerə Mets Hajk’um. Artashisjan
darashrjan (Yerevan, Sargis Khachents) (In Armenian).
65
122. Stepanyan A., 20141, On Interpretation of a Fragment by Moses Khorenatsi (History of
the Armenians, III, 34, 2 - 24), Journal of Armenian Studies of NAS RA, 2/3, 28 – 51.
123. Stepanyan A., 20142, Patmakan zhamanaki kaṙuytsə yev bovandakutyunə (Mets haykə
Q.a. II – Q. h. V dd.), in A. Stepanyan, Patmutyan hetagitsə (Yerevan, Printinfo), 121 –
167 (In Armenian).
124. Stepanyan A., 2018, Westernization in Hellenistic and Early Medieval Armenia. History
and historical texts (Yerevan, Printinfo).
125. Sterling D., 2014, A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria, ed. by T. Seland (Grand Rapids,
Mi, Cambridge, W.B. Eerdmans Co.), 129 – 154.
126. Stewart A. K., 1966, Signs, Symbol sand Meaning, Journal of Communication, 16/1, 4 –
9.
127. Stob R., 1934/1935, Stoicism and Christianity, Classical Journal, 30, 549 – 564.
128. Strootman R., 2007, The Hellenistic Royal Court. Court Culture, Ceremonial and
Ideology in Greece, Egypt and Near East, 336 – 30 BCE (Utrecht, UP).
129. Strootman R., 2017, Eunuchs, Renegades and Concubines. The “Paradox of Power” and
the Promotion of Favorites in the Hellenistic Empires, in A. Erskine, L. Llewellyn-Jones,
S. Wallace (eds.), The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from
Alexander to Cleopatra (Swansea, The Classical Press), 121 – 142.
130. Thomson R. W., 1962, Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church, Le Muséon, 75, 367 –
384.
131. Thomson R. W., 1982, Introduction, in Eḷishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War,
Translation and Commentary by R. W. Thomson (Cambridge, Ma, London, Harvard UP),
1 - 53.
132. Thomson R. W., 1994, The Origin of Caucasian Civilization. The Caucasian Component,
in R. W. Thomson, Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity (Aldershot, Variorum,
Aahgate Publ. Ltd.) SALCh, 25 – 43.
133. Thomson, 19942, Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example, in
R. W. Thomson SALCh, 28 – 45.
134. Thon J. C., 2015, Paul and Popular Philosophy, in Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, ed. By
C. Breytenbach (Leuven, Paris, Bristol, Peetrs), 47 – 74.
135. Traina G., 2004, La fine del Regno Armenia, in Convegno interbazionale La Persia e
Bisanzio (Roma, Accadimia Nazionale del Lincei), 353 – 372.
136. Walbank F. W, 1990, Polubius (Berkeley, Los Angeles, University of California Press).
137. Waters M., 1989, Patriarchy and Viriarchy. An Exploration and Reconstruction of
Concepts of Masculine Domination, Sociology, 23/2, 193 – 211.
138. Weber M., 1968, Economy and Society, v.2 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, California UP).
139. Wirth L., 2017, Cicero on Origins of Civilization and Society: The Preface to De re
publica, book, 3, American Journal of Philology, 138/3, 461 – 487.
140. Wright F. A., 1992, in OCD, 28 (In Armenian).
141. Zarbanalean G., 1889, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanuteans nakhneats (4 – 13 dd.)
(Venetik, Mkhitarean tparan) (in Armenian).
142. Zekiyan P.-L., 2005, Christianity to Modernity, in The Armenians: Past and Present in the
Making of National Identity, ed. By E. Herzig and M. Kurkchyan (London, New York,
Routledge Curzon), 41 – 64.
66

03 Պատմություն 2019 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 Պատմություն 2019 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ä²îØàôÂÚàôÜ

HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY IN SOCIAL THEORY

Antique and Early Medieval (Christian) social theory is considered to be based on

1. The Human Being

According to Aristotle, every form of natural being exists in threefold axiology

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

b. The human dimension

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

17 Stepanyan, 1991, 165 – 171.

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

2. Status of the Household/Family

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

a. Philosophical aspect of family

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

48«[...] եւ նախանձ որդւոցն Արտաշիսի եւ գրգռութիւն ընդ միմեանս ի ձեռն կանանց»:

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

b. Legal aspect of family integration.

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

64 See in detail apamānd in Perikhanyan, 1997 (Glossary), 337.

69 Perikhanian, 1997 (Glossary), 344.

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Regarding the reign of Tigran IV (20 – 6 B.C.), Tacitus highlights:

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

3. Isomorphism of Household and Society

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Ալբերտ Ա. Ստեփանյան - գիտական հետաքրքրությունների շրջանակն ընդ-

ՏՈՒՆ/ԸՆՏԱՆԻՔԸ ՄՈՎՍԵՍ ԽՈՐԵՆԱՑՈՒ

Հանգուցաբառեր - տուն/ընտանիք, բազմամուսնություն,

Հոդվածը խնդիր ունի հետազոտելու ընկերային կառույցի հիմնարար բաղադրի-

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

ДОМ/СЕМЬЯ В СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ ТЕОРИИ

Ключевые слова - дом/семья, полигамия, моногамия,

Статья посвящена исследованию метаморфоз важного компонента соци-

1. Ammianus Marcellinus, 1939 – 1950, History, v. 1 – 3, with an English translation by J. C.

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Monographs and articles

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

Վէմ համահայկական հանդես, ԺԱ (ԺԷ) տարի, թիվ 4 (68), հոկտեմբեր-դեկտեմբեր, 2019

You might also like